If you check the Constitution Party's webpages, state by state, there is ONLY ONE state affiliate named AIP (CA) and ONLY ONE (MI) which is still named Taxpayers. (That is only because the party's petition to have the name changed to CP was rejected by the secretary of state.) The information in the article is plainly wrong in its current wording.

Fixed. Mcarling 16:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The description here of the Constitution Party's principles is extremely incomplete, seeing as it makes no reference to the CP's explicit Christianity. Without this clarification, the CP sounds like another variety of libertarianism or liberal republicanism.

This article is such a demonstration of lack of NPOV I don't even know where to start. Example: "We [bias] are the only party in our country [bias] that believes in the Constitution [bias]." (paraphrased) -- ShadowDragon 09:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

copied from http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_history.htm, now removed. --Jiang 09:20, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Christian?

Reading through the platform I see no emphasis on Christianity? Reference? Dominick 18:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See the preamble to the Constitution Party's platform, at http://www.constitutionparty.org/party_platform.php

Is this the example? This is similar to other preambles in Federalist documents of the 18th century. That is the aim, I think. It has a bent towards that I agree, but it certainly doesn't read like a theocratic organization. Dominick 16:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The preamble does reference God and Jesus Christ, and the party means it. The Federalist founding fathers indeed "meant it" when they included references to God in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. (It is interesting to note, that perhaps due to Thomas Jefferson's odd faith, neither document references Jesus Christ. Jefferson was also a Democrat, not a Federalist.) The Constitution party seems to me to be the biggest U.S. political party which is true to the principles of the Federalists, who died out as a party early in the 19th century. From a neutral POV, even a cursory browsing of the Constitution Party's web site reveals an emphasis on Christian principles and the Bible. I would agree that the CP is not a theocratic organization, but it certainly is a Judeo-Christian one, if not simply Christian. --Locarno 18:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quick fact check; "God" is referenced in the Declaration and the Constitution as the God of Nature or Natures God. This is a deistic worldview (Deist big D the Enlightenment movement) not a Christian one. The only positive statement (by a Foudning Father) about Christianity I found was one by Patrick Henry. Of course he was an anti-Federalist and opposed the Constitution.

Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart is not a Libertarian thing. It might be considered a libertarian thing (or classic liberal thing), but I doubt even that. Plenty of people use it because it is useful. When two entities are the same on the left-right spectrum knowing their ideas on freedom-security can help to differentiate. see also [1] and [2]. At http://uselectionatlas.org (link 2) many many people (in the forums) show their political compass rating despite identifying as Republican, independant, Democrat, and other (including Constitution Party members). Accoriding to [3] Peroutka is right between Conservate and Authoritarian. According to [4] he is again between Conservative and Authoritarian, but not as extremely so. I'd appreciate you not changing my additions again because they are in fact useful to some people. Dustin Asby 20:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's a libertarian thing, to show how great libertarians are as compared to all those other people who are authoritarian about various things. It also only makes any sense at all in a US context. john k 22:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Plenty of things in Wikipedia only apply to the USA, that doesn't matter a bit. And I should think that people would believe that freedom is good, however whether they do or not doesn't change the fact that people can be placed on a liberty-security scale. In other words, it only "shows how great libertarians are" to those who have a libertarian point of view. Those who prefer security over freedom shouldn't have a problem with a chart that shows that opinion, nor should they mind seeing others, that think along their lines, on that chart. Your argument is like saying that when a Republican calls a Democrat liberal it is a bad thing. It is "bad" to conservatives, and it is "good" (or fine) with liberals to be called such. If I point out someones opinions and they are bothered by it, then it isn't truly his/her opinions. Should I use the political compass chart rather than the Nolan Chart (since Nolan himself is a Libertarian)? Dustin Asby 01:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dustin Asby. It's useful. 13:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Winger opinion

It should not be the purpose of any page that summarizes a particular political party to insist upon deriding it. Let the vote totals and registration figures be what they are.

First, it is entirely speculative to say that AIP registrants in CA didn't want to register that way. Second, the suggested language only guesses at how the State of California classifies voters who indicate a preference for "Independent," and if they do this, how many are involved. And third, any minor party IS, in point of fact, "independent" in one sense of the word, being an adjunct in a predominantly two-party system such as ours. This further casts doubt upon the article's ability to determine what all the registered voters of the party, or any party, intended when registering.

Sorry, it's sourced and verified. You may not agree with Winger but that's no reason to delete his opinion from this article. Rhobite 15:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I googled for it, using +"Richard Winger" +"Independent American Party" and couldn't find any statement by him to that effect. Where is it? Rad Racer 15:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's one man's opinion, NOT FACT.

Fortunately, opinions also have a place in Wikipedia if they're properly attributed. You're free to add the Constitution Party's take on the matter of registrant confusion. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is not synonymous with "no point of view." Around here, we don't delete debates - we describe them fairly. I'm re-adding Winger's opinion. If you think I summarized it incorrectly, please modify it. Rhobite 19:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Not "christian democratic"

I read the article on Christian democratic parties, and the CP certainly does not match, so I've removed that. Also, please hesitate identifying the CP too closely with Christians; they have been making efforts to be a party for those who have similar principles regarding government, regardless of religion; there are significant amounts Jews and secular people in the party. However, we can't deny that the CP is heavily influenced by the Bible and Christian thought. --Locarno 15:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Theocratic! That's a good description. Rad Racer | Talk 19:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian vs. Constitutionalist

See Why not the Libertarian Party to see why, although the two parties share some positions on economic issues, they ultimately are rooted in entirely different beliefs. Rad Racer 12:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Somehow "Christian Right / Libertarian" still doesn't seem to describe them correctly, since that could mean they are either Christian Right, except they economic self-governors (correct) or Christian Right, except they are personal self-governors (incorrect). Actually, I think the main problem is that "the right," which according to the World's Smallest Political Quiz supports economic freedom, has become associated with such hypocrisy on economic issues, that at first glance it doesn't seem like the right word to describe the Constitutionalists. Rad Racer 20:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the right supports "economic freedom" is a rather recent one, and is certainly not an integral part of what defines "the right". Liberalism is about economic freedom, but liberalism is neither of the left nor the right (or of both, I guess). Traditional conservatism certainly had little interest in economic freedom. john k 22:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was using the labels from World's Smallest Political Quiz. These terms have constantly-shifting meanings and therefore are somewhat arbitrary. Rad Racer 23:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ideology

Is Paleoconservative the self-descriptive term for the Constitution Party's ideology? If not, the ideology field in the summary box should be brought into alignment with the other U.S. Parties (Green Party (United States), Libertarian Party (United States), etc.) that use self-descriptives. Actually, beyond that issue, I think paleoconservative is somwhat inaccurate. Daniel Quinlan 22:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)