Arkansas Constitution Party Disaffiliates

The Constitution Party of Arkansas has joined the growing list of state parties to disaffiliate themselves from the national Constitution Party organization. In 2004, Michael Peroutka received 2,083 votes (or 0.20%) in Arkansas.

The state party’s Central Committee unanimously approved the following resolution:

Whereas, according to the National Constitution Party By Laws, state affiliates are required and expected to uphold the National party’s platform, and

Whereas the National Constitution Party platform states, in part, that “life begins at fertilization,” and that “we affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception,” and

Whereas the Nevada state affiliate to the Constitution Party has elected central committee officers, including the current chairman, Christopher Hansen, who refuse to support the National Party’s no-exceptions policy on abortion, but insist upon upholding and promoting a more permissive policy on abortion, and

Whereas said Nevada state affiliate has encouraged and supported candidates within their party who similarly refuse to uphold the National Party’s 100% pro-life policy on abortion, and

Whereas the National Party leadership has refused to take the steps necessary to ensure that the Nevada state affiliate upholds the National Party platform, and

Whereas other state affiliates have recently similarly enlisted candidates for public office who do not uphold the National Party’s no-exceptions policy on abortion, and

Whereas the National Party has begun to evince the very same hostility towards government policy drawn from Biblical principle that is so prevalent in the two dominant parties which have led America into her current precarious position,

Be it therefore resolved that the Constitution Party of Arkansas is henceforth disaffiliated, withdrawing its participation, from the Constitution Party’s National Committee, and

Be it further resolved that the Constitution Party of Arkansas calls upon the Constitution Party’s Executive and National Committees to demonstrate a reasonable level of determination to enforce the Party’s platform among all its state affiliates, and cease their hypocrisy in using the mere names of Christ and Christianity in an attempt to bolster the party’s appeal and respectability while much of its leadership scoffs at the idea of seeking God’s standards for civil government.

43 Responses to “Arkansas Constitution Party Disaffiliates”

  1. Richard Winger Says:

    The Arkansas Constitution Party is not ballot-qualified.

  2. Arkie Says:

    ...yet. By the way, thanks Richard for coming to Arkansas to testify on behalf of the Greens to get our unconstitutional ballot access laws thrown out. We really appreciate all the work you do!

  3. Otto Kerner Says:

    Does anyone have any sense what the core of the Constitution Party is that’s not disaffiliating? Whatever is left might well be stronger, shorn of its more directly theocratic elements. Perhaps they can attract and/or merge with some of the Buchananite 3rd party movement (i.e. the relatively sane portion of the America First Party).

  4. Stuart Richards Says:

    Hmm.

    The more I think about it, the more I see this as a universal struggle of third parties-factions of pragmatism versus factions of absolutism. The LP’s going through a similar struggle, albeit it’s not this bad-no state party’s disaffiliating or anything like that.

    The absolutists are needed as the conscience of a given party, to ascertain that it does not veer too sharply off its intended course. However, no party is going to be successful with them firmly in charge; you need those who can practice pragmatic politics steering the course of the party, writing the platform, persuading the voters. After all, if there were some huge wellspring of voters out there who were absolutely 100% against all abortions because the Bible said so… well, you wouldn’t be a third party, now would you?

    Much as I personally disagree with the theocratic positions taken by the Constitution Party, they are clearly doing the right thing, politically, by moderating those parts of their message that they have no hope of instituting quite yet.

    Political parties have to campaign on what’s viable; what’s viable is determined by how the voters think. Political parties shouldn’t try to change that; that’s for think tanks and cultural organizations to do. For Libertarians, that means the Cato Institute. For the Constitution Party, that means right-wing churches. It’s just the job of political parties to swing the electorate as much as realistically possible towards their point of view.

  5. RCAIP Says:

    Good point Otto,

    In fact in New York and Ohio, we already have new state affiliates up and running!

  6. RCAIP Says:

    And with more nuts leaving, we can turn Arkansas into a practical state-affiliate.

    More campaigning, less Mormon bashing.

  7. Joe Says:

    Stuart,

    I don’t understand.

    On the one hand you say “The absolutists are needed as the conscience of a given party” yet you also say that “the Constitution Party, they are clearly doing the right thing, politically, by moderating those parts of their message that they have no hope of instituting quite yet.”

    Yet by “moderating their message” the Constitution Party has lost seven state affiliates thus far. Presumably they are losing the absolutists in their party, which you say are needed, so how can they be doing the right thing?

  8. Stuart Richards Says:

    They are doing the right thing-but the absolutists seem to be flaking out about it. The absolutists are doing the wrong thing by not supporting the pragmatists who can bring them all closer to their ideal state of affairs.

    “No abortions ever ‘cuz Jesus says so” is not an electable position these days, but the absolutists in the CP seem to not realize that… or at least, the vocal ones don’t.

    So I’d really place the blame squarely on them.

  9. RCAIP Says:

    Interesting Stu, but we don’t need ‘absolutionists’ in our Party- to keep them in with us is like keeping foxes in the hen-house.

    I believe they can do fine on their own without us.

    But still, Joe, the states that left will be reorganized with better affiliates and with more practical leaders, just like New York and Ohio and next with Maryland and Missouri.

  10. Joe Says:

    Stuart,

    According to your paradigm alternative parties need “absolutists.” Assuming you are correct that the seven state parties that have disaffiliated from the Constitution Party are absolutists, it necessarily follows that the party did the wrong thing: ie they have lost what you said they need.

    Supposing that, for the sake of argument, you are correct and that the Constitution Party’s life plank is not an electable position, why would you place the blame on the absolutists? If they were willing to stay in a party that allowed leaders and candidates who would allow abortions in the cases of rape and incest, they wouldn’t be absolutists. Remember, you are the one who said “the absolutists are needed as the conscience of a given party to ascertain that it does not veer too sharply off its intended course.”

  11. Relient J Says:

    I think the Arkansas CP made the right decision by disaffiliating, though I wish it had not come down to that. If the Constitution Party cannot be faithful to its own platform in regards to its supposed 100% pro-life stance, then it has no credibility. I had great hopes that the CP was the party I could enthusiastically support, but by voting to retain the Nevada party they have given grave concerns to this voter.

  12. RCAIP Says:

    I’ve heard that some of the state affiliates, and the Peroutka crowd talking about a possible merger with the American Heritage Party of Washington (state). If the dissaffiliated states do join up with the AHP, then good for them. Honestly, if they want to join another party that would represent their ‘views’, then they should go for it.

    Makes no difference to me other to the REAL members of the CP, whatsoever.

  13. Vincent Darrah Says:

    What are the new affiliates going to call themselves. The ones that disaffiliated kept the name Constitution Party. Are there going to be 2 Constitution Party’s in the states?

  14. Chris Campbell Says:

    I wonder if it is as bogus as Missouri, supposedly they left with a handful voting to do so, most of members did not even know about it. One wonders, but…...

  15. Gary Odom Says:

    The Arkansas vote was apparently 4-2. At least one of those members remains with the national CP to start the process of actually building a real political party there now.

    This “party” had six active members! That’s what happens when your “organization” is exclusionist in nature. It completely stifles growth. Some people have not been able to understand that “disaffiliations” such as these are the healthiest possible thing for the Constitution Party.

    You will now see real organizational growth in New York, Ohio, Missouri and Arkansas for the Constitution Party.

    By the way, regardless of “disaffiliation” issues, I urge every Constitution Party member to support Mary Starrett for Governor of Oregon…and our Libertarian friends in that state ought to take a look at her candidacy as well.

  16. Jason Sheppard Says:

    Those are lies, Gary.

    First, the vote was unanimous. The Central Committee was UNIFIED on this decision (yes, we all met in person).

    Secondly, Arkansas election law does not utilize nor factor in party membership; we have open primaries. Not even the Republicans or Democrats have membership lists.

    Finally, I’ve received scores of correspondence congratulating us on our decision. Good luck ignoring the people and stubbornly rebuilding the party in Arkansas.

  17. Sean Scallon Says:

    Stuart makes some good points about the pragmatist/absolutist split that’s in many non-major parties, not just the CP. It’s largely because of the ideological nature of such parties and what helpes to split them in the face of election defeats and or lack of influence and what stunts the growth of such parties. In the LP for example, the pragmatists are fully in charge now and I doubt if the absolutist Bostoin Tea party will amount to much. However, in the CP, the absolutists are substantial in number and control many states as disaffiliation movement shows.

    But how can the Peroutkaites and others talk about forming their own party when they are not even committed winning elections? These people people revel in the purity of defeat and you get the impression they’d rather be a religious sect yet now they wish to split the CP? To be what, a party that does nothing, just like AHP? A groups of nobodies and nothings loving their nothingness?

    I reiterate my message to them and the Rockwellians who too, would rather go quietly into the night rather than make any kind of impact politically: Don’t do it. Don’t get involved in electoral politics unless you wish to have some kind of success or build a party. Stay in your think tanks, educate voters and change the culture to make it more hospital for your kind of politics rather engage in endless lost causes. Politics is more than just elections and you can still do good work even if you’re not running for office. But don’t run for office unless you plan on winning, unless you’re the Stark Raving Looney Party and its all a joke to begin with. Wasting your time, money and eneregy is not a laughing matter.

  18. Gary Odom Says:

    To Jason Sheppard,

    I am NOT lying about this situation. If you are claiming this vote to be unanimous then you KNOW you are not counting all the votes.

    But it doesn’t really matter. You and your group should join with the American Heritage Party or with whomever you feel comfortable. Do what you want. This is hopefully still a free country. I do not condemn you if you do not wish to be part of the Constitution Party. I wish you well and hope that you find what you are looking for. If you are looking for animosity, you will not get it from me. Good luck!

    In the meantime, the Constitution Party intends to have a real political organization in every state in the nation and be in a position to compete in the 2008 elections.

  19. Joe Says:

    Sean,

    It’s not accurate to say that Michael Peroutka was not committed to win his election. Just because somebody loses it doesn’t mean they weren’t trying their best to win.

    I’m looking at it from the other side. Why join a party that allows leaders and candidates who will allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest, when you know that you are going to have to fight tooth and nail not only for victory, but for ballot access, media attention, etc? If I were a pragmatist I would have joined the Republican or Democrat parties. They don’t share my values, but each wins about half of the elections. The Constitution Party on the other hand has rejected my core beliefs, yet at the same time has few victories to point to: the worst of both worlds. I just don’t see why a “pragmatist” would even bother with alternative parties. There are caucuses within the major parties, such as the RLC for Libertarians, that people who are willing to compromise can join.

  20. RCAIP Says:

    Joe,

    two-words:

    Illegal Immigration

    -that’s why conservatives and disillusioned GOP’ers would want to join the CP. Whether you like it or not, Immigration is a hotter issue then abortion and if we focus on controlling the borders, rather then just focusing on moral issues and now America is going to Hell, then you will see the CP explode in membership.

    Look at Nevada, they don’t just talk about moral issues- they have gained 25,000+ new voters in the past 4 years and are running 45 candidates.
    Not even Montana is running that many.

    And even in California, we now have two AIP’ers serving in local office. Yet we don’t go off the deep end on issues. Tell’s you something.

  21. RCAIP Says:

    If Arkansas only has 6 active members, that that explains why they’re not running any candidates or doing anything!
    Except for Montana maybe, these disaffiliations don’t matter, the CP always can rebuild and is already doing so.

  22. RCAIP Says:

    And Vince, most of these Parties will be going over to the American Heritage Party. Some many remain a lone state party and others will become religious organizations.

    And I don’t give a damn!

    Good riddence!

  23. RCAIP Says:

    You have to understand Joe,

    Some pragmatists don’t like our political system and want to see it changed while keeping common sense in their brain. They don’t want to join a Party that functions like a Church, but a anti-establishment political entity that acts like one.

    I am one of those.

  24. Jason Sheppard Says:

    Gary,

    Thank you for remaining civil. I am NOT looking for animosity; I’m merely trying to set the record straight. With all due respect, you were not at the meeting. Your knowledge is secondary at best.

    There was an observer present who was not even aware of the Nevada situation and, not surprisingly, she did not support disaffiliation. She did not have a vote, as she is not part of our Central Committee. We on the CC, on the other hand, have been studying this issue for months.

    Your implication that the vote was “apparently 4-2” is erroneous. The vote was, and still is, unanimous.

  25. Relient J Says:

    RCAIP, I personally would love to see the Constitution Party fight hard to close our borders and put a stop to illegal immigration, but I would hate to see it sit by and watch as the premier moral crisis of our day, abortion, continues without ceasing. If you believe as I do that abortion is our nation’s holocaust, you find it hard to sit by while millions of unborn children are murdered in this country.

  26. RCAIP Says:

    Of course Relient,

    My wife give birth to a baby girl 3 months ago- she was unexpected and came at a time when we’re trying to make ends meet. Yet I love my daughter with all my heart and always spend time with her while on my days off.
    I’m a young adult, yet unlike immature morons my age, the thought of getting a abortion never came to my mind, or ever will.

    It is a holocaust, I agree with you on that.
    However we will get nowhere and save no unborn child with our exclusive attitude- I know we cannot expect to save every child- such a goal is unreasonable- for now.
    We must take baby-steps to stop abortion- first work to stop 99% of all abortions then worry about that 1% when you get there.
    The national CP, really should’ve been neutral on the exceptions matter from the start- leaving it up to the state parties and individuals on that matter.
    And even with the GOP being more Pro-Choice then Life, simply trying to tear them down on abortion and making yourself look “more Pro-Life” will not get you elected or even a nice chunk of the vote!
    The majority of Americans and half of all Pro-Lifers favor exceptions, so why not campaign on a issue that every citizen can agree on- Immigration!

    I think we should start vigoriously combating abortion once we get our candidates elected- have them first pass tough ordinances against the clinics and slowley get more restrictive laws passed against the practice.
    I admire how Mississippi has handled abortion, and I do support South Dakota’s actions and hope they win in the Supreme Court.

    I know the Sup. Court is going to rule in a few months on the matter of partial-birth abortions, so right now I think we should all pray that they make the Right decision, or even a Better decision concerning abortion altogether:)

  27. RCAIP Says:

    Hear’s a food-for-thought on abortion-

    Say we do ban abortion, even exceptions in America, are we still 100% Pro-Life?

    What about the dozens and dozens and dozens of other nations around the world that allow the slaughter of the unborn? Yet we believe and advocate for non-interventionism (as in our platform), in staying out of other nations business, they continue legalized abortion without interference.

    Are we still 100% Pro-Life?

  28. Joe Says:

    RCAIP,

    I don’t understand what you mean when you say “They don’t want to join a Party that functions like a Church, but a anti-establishment political entity that acts like one” especially that last part?

    I don’t see how supporting an alternative party that allows leaders and candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest changes the political system. There are already many political parties that do that, including the two major ones.

    As far as the relationship between abortion and non-interventionism the Constitution Party’s platform is clear. They say they are opposed to both abortion and foreign wars. There are all kinds of things other countries do in addition to abortion that I oppose. For example, I don’t think countries should be Sharia-governed. However, that doesn’t mean I want America’s military to force them to change. I don’t want our military to end abortion overseas anymore than I wanted our military to be deployed to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. That doesn’t mean that I think what happened in Rwanda is a good thing. But the purpose of America’s military is to defend America, not to make the world a better place. We have enough problems of our own right here to deal with. It is unconscionable that we presume to tell other nations how to live when thousands of our most vulnerable are butchered daily in our own neighborhoods. We have no moral authority to dictate to anybody. One of the reasons I opposed our unconstitutional attack on Iraq, though not the only reason, is because abortion was illegal under Saddam and now it is “legal” in Iraq. If a pro-abort nation like America succesfully interferes overseas it necessarily follows that the world will become more pro-abort, not less!

  29. RCAIP Says:

    RCAIP,

    I don’t understand what you mean when you say “They don’t want to join a Party that functions like a Church, but a anti-establishment political entity that acts like one” especially that last part?

    =The American Heritage Party, which is the new home of the fanatical element from the CP, seems so obssessed with Religion, that Religious beliefs and Politics are the same thing intertwined to them. Their membership also is restricted to ‘certain’ types of Christians. Therefore they seem more like a Church then a Party. It is obvious that such people want to be involved in a Party that exclusively functions like one.

    =I don’t, I already go to Church- I rather be in a political third-party that acts like one. Like the Peoples Party of Switzerland, or the One Nation Party of Australia- even the National Front of France- Right-wing, Populist, even religiously Rightest, but not Theocratic. That’s what the Constitution Party should be- like a Right-wing Populist Party and not a church of worship- we already have those.

    I don’t see how supporting an alternative party that allows leaders and candidates that would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest changes the political system. There are already many political parties that do that, including the two major ones.

    =because, as you fail to see the point- the Majority of Americans favor exceptions, as do a good number of Pro-Lifers. The GOP will dominate the Abortion issue for a long time, no matter how much we scream and shout and try proving people of their Pro-Chioce connections. We will get nowehere in running for office, so why not focus on issues that people can agree with and get them riled up to vote for us. Illegal Immigration is one, and we’ll frighten the Establishment which it. The Abortion issue should be focused on once our candidates get elected- It is better to act Pro-Life then whine about how Pro-Life you are.
    You also fail to see that the GOP doesn’t want to overturn Roe V. Wade- while the CP/IAP/AIP do- as those in the CP that favor exceptions want to overturn it. We might be 99% for Life, but the GOP is not even 80% Pro-Life. We’re still way more Pro-Life then either Establishment Party, don’t you see that?

    =And as I have witnessed, the ‘no-exceptionist’ people in the CP, or no longer in the CP, are highly prejudiced of other religious faiths, including of Latter-day Saints- as demonstrated by Reed Heustis, Barry Kroeker, Ben Powers and so forth.

    As far as the relationship between abortion and non-interventionism the Constitution Party’s platform is clear. They say they are opposed to both abortion and foreign wars. There are all kinds of things other countries do in addition to abortion that I oppose. For example, I don’t think countries should be Sharia-governed.

    =agreed.

    However, that doesn’t mean I want America’s military to force them to change.

    =Very understandable- we’re already deep in the mess that we made around the world.

    I don’t want our military to end abortion overseas anymore than I wanted our military to be deployed to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. That doesn’t mean that I think what happened in Rwanda is a good thing. But the purpose of America’s military is to defend America, not to make the world a better place. We have enough problems of our own right here to deal with. It is unconscionable that we presume to tell other nations how to live when thousands of our most vulnerable are butchered daily in our own neighborhoods. We have no moral authority to dictate to anybody.

    =Yes.

    One of the reasons I opposed our unconstitutional attack on Iraq, though not the only reason, is because abortion was illegal under Saddam and now it is “legal” in Iraq. If a pro-abort nation like America succesfully interferes overseas it necessarily follows that the world will become more pro-abort, not less!

    =I was talking about the countries that have legal abortions, like Canada and most of Europe. What about them?

    =Again- What if America actually changed and we’re Pro-Life to the core-zero exceptions- what then? should we stop legalized abortion in those other countries too? I’m asking a hypothedical question here.

  30. RCAIP Says:

    Is this Joe Elred of New York I am talking too?

  31. Joe Says:

    You say that the American Heritage Party so intertwines politics and religion that the two seem like the same thing to them. Well, I have heard the same criticism levelled at the Constitution Party by secular humanists as one might expect about a party that America was founded “not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that declares its goal is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations.

    I realize that most Republicans would have no problem with their party nominating candidates and electing leaders who would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest. That is one of the major reasons I did not join the the Republican Party.

    As far as Canada is concerned, it’s unlikely that even President Bush will invade Canada. But if he did I have no doubt that the number of abortions in Canada would increase in short order.

  32. RCAIP Says:

    You say that the American Heritage Party so intertwines politics and religion that the two seem like the same thing to them. Well, I have heard the same criticism levelled at the Constitution Party by secular humanists as one might expect about a party that America was founded “not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that declares its goal is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations.

    =Secular humanists think the Republican Party is the same way too! Humanists and Theocrats really are almost the same in absolutionist extreminism and ignorance.
    Yet being someone that’s not a secular humanist- the AHP truely intertwines religion and politics- even a Chimp would know that.

    =You also forgot this Paragraph in the CP Preamble:

    -”The Constitution of the United States provides that “NO RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on ALL those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.”

    =And the ‘origional intent’ DID NOT MEAN DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN SECTS!

    =In fact Joe, I think the fanatics in the CP are in violation of this part of the platform, due to their hostility to LDS, Jews, and Catholics in the Party. But that doesn’t really matter because they are leaving.

    =Perhaps it would’ve been better if the CP kept the origional language of ‘Lord God’, as it was in the nat. Platform before 1999, and not get so detailed.

    I realize that most Republicans would have no problem with their party nominating candidates and electing leaders who would allow abortion in the cases of rape and incest. That is one of the major reasons I did not join the the Republican Party.

    =Most Republicans would have no problem nominating candidates and electing leaders that are 100% Pro-Choice. The CP is still way more Pro-Life then the GOP.

    As far as Canada is concerned, it’s unlikely that even President Bush will invade Canada. But if he did I have no doubt that the number of abortions in Canada would increase in short order.

    =You’re side-stepping my question…

    =What if America actually changed and we’re Pro-Life to the core-zero exceptions- what then? should we stop legalized abortion in those other countries too?
    -I’m asking a hypothedical question here Joe.

  33. RCAIP Says:

    .....

    ...I’m waiting!....

  34. RCAIP Says:

    I think I have just been given a answer by Joe.

    There is NO SUCH THING as being 100% Pro-Life because if you’re opposed to abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, then you favor death of the mother, and even the child too, if the child dies afterward. The South Dakota ban on abortions is exceptionist for Life of the Mother and extreme deformity, so it is not a ‘no-exceptionist’ ban on abortion.

    And on the matter on abortion in other countries, Joe thinks we shouldn’t bother with those nations killing their unborn- but since Joe is only concerned with saving the lives of unborn American babies only, then that really is favoring exceptions, as he doesn’t think the lives of unborn foreign babies are important.

    However if he agreed that stopping abortion was a global issue that had to be confronted, then he would be in direct contrediction with the CP platform, and George Washington himself on Foreign Policy- then the CP would have to be ultra-interventionalist and Globalist. All our reasources and money would have to be spent on stopping abortion world-wide. Such a view is un-nationalist however.
    Of course I wouldn’t be suprised if some of the ‘no-exceptionist’ crowd took this approach on abortion, since many no-exceptionists in the Party consider every Plank in the nat. platform unimportant and irrelevant, as you can disagree with any part except for the Santity of Life- which either you uphold it, or you’re out of the Party, as the zealots see it.

    The issue of a State Chair having personal views differing with a plank in the platform is petty to dwell on, and extremly petty and simpleton to kick him, or his state-affiliate out because of it.

    But again, the issue of Abortion was only the tip of the iceberg.
    rather it was more about the ‘Mormons’ and the “Pluralists” controlling the Party and supressing the “Crown Rights of King Jesus” in constitutional politics.

    I do not understand why Joe or the others that wanted the Nevada Party gone can’t be honest about why they really wanted to do it in the first place?

  35. RCAIP Says:

    So please come out of the closet on Nevada, guys.

  36. Joe Says:

    Below is the text of the resolution we passed on April 10th. I was present at the meeting where it passed and there was no discussion of anybody’s religion:

    Whereas the National Committee of the Constitution Party has been
    troubled for more than a year and a half by events arising from a
    decision by the chairman of the Independent American Party of Nevada
    (IAPN) to publicly air views in clear opposition to the pro-life
    plank of the National Party, and

    Whereas the IAPN chairman has refused to publicly recant his
    statements, but has affirmed his position and

    Whereas the National Committee by majority vote at its meeting in
    Columbus, Ohio, in the fall of 2005 has requested the Independent
    American Party of Nevada to address the situation and

    Whereas the Independent American Party of Nevada has responded by
    stating in writing to the national Constitution Party chairman the
    IAPN support for its state chairman, thus elevating the issue to the
    level of a scandal that threatens the pro-life position and message
    of the Constitution Party and

    Whereas leaders in the national Constitution Party have failed to
    address the scandal but have instead publicly attacked and unfairly
    maligned individuals seeking to promote the party’s pro-life
    identity, and

    Whereas several state affiliates, including Michigan, Ohio, Montana,
    Alabama, Oregon and New York have formally called for disaffiliation
    of the IAPN in accordance with the powers granted to the National
    Committee by its bylaws, and

    Whereas a disaffiliation motion brought to the floor of the National
    Committee in Columbus, Ohio, in 2005 was ruled out of order by the
    National Chairman;

    Be it hereby resolved that the Constitution Party of New York shall
    formally cease its affiliation with the national Constitution Party
    if the Independent American Party of Nevada is not disaffiliated
    from the national Constitution Party as of April 23, 2006.

  37. RCAIP Says:

    Yeah, aren’t you guys now called the Christian Heritage Party or somthing?

  38. RCAIP Says:

    If its not about religion, then how do you explain the comments on the chatroom in the American View?

    How do you explain Reed Heustis’s recent article-

    www.reedheustis.com

    -And how do you explain the remarks here?

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/07/21/maryland-constitution-party-breaks-ties

    Yeah, it really wasn’t about Religion after all.

  39. RCAIP Says:

    BTW,

    How come Austin no longer lists ‘Christian Constitutionalists’ website on TPW anymore?

    Hmmmm, I do wonder!

  40. Austin Cassidy Says:

    What website is that you’re talking about? We went through a few months ago and removed 5 or 6 websites from the blogroll that were inactive. Nothing sinister about it… if you’ve got a site that you’d like me to take a look at just post the link here or send and email and I’ll consider putting it back with the links.

  41. RCAIP Says:

    =I have one, it’s a yahoo chatroom though- but it’s becoming well known.

  42. RCAIP Says:

    =Thank you for removing the site Austin- its no different then hosting a site for the White Peoples Party

  43. RickB in Michigan Says:

    Written above, in Joe’s response, is the following: “Whereas several state affiliates, including Michigan,...have formally called for disaffiliation
    of the IAPN in accordance with the powers granted to the National
    Committee by its bylaws…” This misrepresents what has gone on here. There was a move, led by our previous state chairman, to dis-affiliate. That move failed. The U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan retains its affiliation with the Constitution Party National Executive Committee. The few absolutists have left. However, because of timing, their names remain on the ballot for this November. Our party took a hit, but the the strong constitutionalists have remained, and each of them are 100% pro-lifers. Now, in our new and stronger trim, we can move beyond our single-issue focus and onto all the other issues needing work that were being starved to death. There is no religious test in our state. I am Catholic, and our gubernatorial candidate is Hindu. Members include perons of African and Oriental descent. We are all Americans that want to restore the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. From my own personal point of view, unless we all adopt this kind of attitude, we will fail to grow to displace the Democrat and Republican party animals that have highjacked our constitutional republic.

Leave a Reply