• Home
  •  / 
  • Spring 2018 National Committee Meeting
Join / Donate

Spring 2018 National Committee Meeting

     GET READY FOR THE SPRING 2018 CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING IN DENVER, COLORADO!

Keynote Speaker: Joe Miller

Joe Miller is an attorney and Alaskan politician who battled Senator Lisa Murkowski in her infamous write-in campaign against him during the 2010 election.   He is a graduate of West Point and a 1995 graduate of Yale Law School and is a combat veteran of the 1991 Gulf War.  Married to the former Kathleen Tompkins, they are the parents of four sons and four daughters.

APRIL 20th through the 22nd

Location Information: 

Embassy Suites Hotel Denver International Airport

7001 Yampa Street

Denver, Colorado 80249-6441

Please use this link to reserve your room, or call 1-303-574-3000.

King or Double Suites available.

$149.00 per night, includes a hot breakfast each morning.

Rooms will be available at this price until March 28th, 2018.

Registration Information:

Fee for both National Committee Members and guests is $140.00 per person.  Voting privileges are allowed only for credentialed National Committee Members. Fee will be $160.00 after 29 March to meet hotel meal count requirements.

Fee for students between the ages of 14 and 18 is $115.00.  All children under the age of 18 can attend for free, but meals will not be provided.

Please make sure to note your meal preference (vegetarian or meat) on the registration form.

Registration fee includes a complimentary reception with snacks and beverages each evening from 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm.

Keynote Speaker and Banquet Only:

Option One – Use the registration form to reserve your spot for the Keynote Speech – $20.00

Option Two – Use the registration form to reserve your spot for the Keynote Speech and Banquet – $50.00.

Deadline is March 29th!

How to Register:

Please download and fill out the registration form for all options.

To Pay online – click here to pay your registration fee.  Download, print, and fill out registration form here and return to the National Office via fax (1-717-299-5115), or email (bmilcnp [at] gmail [dot] com), or regular mail.

To Pay with credit card by phone – call Brenda Miller at the National Office (Monday through Friday, 9:00 am – 1:00 pm Eastern Time); 1-800-283-8647 or 1-717-390-1993, Download, print, and fill out registration form here and return to the National Office via fax (1-717-299-5115), or email (bmilcnp [at] gmail [dot] com), or regular mail.

To Pay with check – Download, print, and fill out registration form here and return with your payment to the National Office via fax (1-717-299-5115), or email (bmilcnp [at] gmail [dot] com), or regular mail.

Mailing Address –  Constitution Party National Committee; P.O. Box 1782; Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17608

National Committee Members:

Annual dues are $100.00.  If you pay online, please use this link to pay your dues, and this link to pay your registration.

If you are paying by credit card or by check, you may include your dues with your registration fee.  Don’t forget to note this in the appropriate space on your registration form, which can be downloaded here.

If you cannot attend, please fill out the proxy form available on the registration form and return to the National Office ASAP.

We look forward to seeing you at this gathering of Constitutionists –
greeting old friends and meeting new ones!

Save

Save

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