Why Libertarian and Constitution Parties should merge

I really think that if a serious challenge is to be mounted to the two-party oligopoly, a certain amount of strategy is in order, as well as a willingness to lay aside differences on a few issues if there is agreement on most issues. Furthermore, not only do parties like the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have to compare their platforms to one another, they also have to compare their platforms to those of the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Libertarians by their very nature will draw most of their votes from the right because Republicans and Libertarians both tend to advertise themselves as supporters of limited government, while Democrats tend to promote Big Government. But if that draw is to have an impact on either party, I believe the Libertarian Party needs to adopt a pro-life stance. If they cannot accept that unborn babies have the same rights as born babies, at the very least they should support overturning Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton and Stenberg vs. Carhart on 10th Amendment grounds, namely that in all those cases the "Senile Court" violated the separation of powers and usurped the authority of state legislatures. The main obstacle to many frustrated conservatives switching to the Libertarian Party is its stance on abortion which is currently pro-choice.

So why isn't Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party drawing more votes from the right? First, the LP is bigger, better known and better organized. The CP is too new to have gained that status. Most people don't even know it was originally the Taxpayer's Party.

Also, while Peroutka's website makes it clear a Peroutka Administration will not infringe on the legislative powers of the states, Peroutka's harsh anti-gay rhetoric leaves some to believe he will try to use government to impose judeo-christian morality on the American people. Even libertarians who believe the Bible do not believe this is any of the government's business, and the CP will not draw very many votes with that kind of rhetoric. People who are both pro-life and anti-gay already have their candidate in George W. Bush. It is people who are pro-life, but support gay rights, who could be swayed by either the CP or a pro-life LP. In a close race that would be a serious wound to the GOP.

Here is where the CP and LP agree:

--much lower taxes
--limited government that only does what is allowed by the Constitution
--the use of our military ONLY for national self-defense, not for nation-building
--absolute freedom of speech and religion, government completely neutral
--an unregulated free-market economy where only outright fraud can be punished by the government
--abolishing the obscene Patriot Act which urinates and defecates on the Bill of Rights (note: Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards voted FOR the Patriot Act)
--end eminent domain and also the extortion of private property by the government using either terrorism or drugs as an excuse
--the issue of same-sex marriages and civil unions should be decided by the state legislatures, not by Congress or the courts. Many LP members also feel this way about abortion and most other issues.


Where the LP and CP disagree:
-- the CP is unapologetically pro-life, while LP members are divided on abortion and the leadership of the LP leans pro-choice. Both parties agree the taxpayers should NEVER be forced to pay for anyone's abortion.
--the LP does not believe the government has any constitutional authority to prohibit drugs; the CP opposes some of the tactics used in the "war on drugs" such as the seizing of property, but does not support legalization.
--the CP believes America is to be a Christian nation within the parameters set by the Constitution; the LP believes the government is to be completely neutral on matters of religion. The CP supports allowing voluntary prayer in schools, for example, while the LP supports privatizing education entirely.

What the CP and LP should agree as a compromise:
--that the Federal courts do not have the authority to impose any aspect of the N.O.W.'s agenda, including abortion, on the American people. The issue of abortion should be returned to the state legislatures, meaning Roe v. Wade and other abortion-related decisions by the SCOTUS must be overturned. Members of the combined party are free to disagree on whether the SCOTUS should emphasize the separation of powers, thus giving unlimited authority to the states, or equal protection, thus encouraging (and possibly requiring) states to extend legal protection to unborn babies;
--that by merging under a pro-life banner, on either grounds, will result in more support from the voters than either party is capable of attracting by itself; and thus a more measurable impact on the Democrat and Republican Parties;
--that the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate sexual orientation or marriage, except to prohibit forcible rape/sodomy and to require that the parties in any sexual relationship, including marriage, have reached a reasonable age of consent as determined by the state legislatures;
--that the Federal government has no authority to prohibit drugs or medication except for those known to be deadly; and that, within reason, states are free to restrict the use of mind-altering substances if they can establish a compelling interest such as a tendency for users to become violent. In any case, a physician must be free to prescribe marijuana or anything else if it is the best treatment for his or her patient, withouth fear of prosecution;
--and that government must be completely neutral on matters of religion and do exactly as the First Amendment says: neither try to establish a religion nor infringe upon the freedom of individuals to express and practice their religious beliefs unhindered, whether on public or private property. As with any other issue, the government's responsibility is limited to acting against force and fraud. In the absence of either the government must keep its hands off.

MM