Constitution Party and the Clarion Call to Unite
By Joshua Fauver
I’ve reported a few times on the Clarion Call To Unite Committee and find it appropriate to report on their progress again now. The Clarion Call to Unite Committee has had incredible progress at this point in their efforts. Several parties have hopped on board with their efforts to unite the several constitutionalists parties. Among those on board include the Independent American Party, the American Independent Party of California, and the Independent Green Party of Virginia. While the Constitution Party leadership has not officially endorsed this effort or expressed support for it, several members of the party do support it including a few in leadership position, some of which actively participate in the effort to unite the parties. This begs the question why the Constitution Party is not all on board with this. It is an interesting question. The Constitution Party, like the other constitutionalists parties who are already on board with the efforts of the CCTUC, stand only to gain from the goals of the CCTUC.
All of the parties have similar platforms and have the common goal of restoring constitutionally limited government. Doesn’t it seem only commonsensical to fight for this together rather than as separate entities? I certainly would think so. One strong unified party can certainly accomplish much more than several smaller parties can. The Constitution Party being the largest of the constitutionalists parties being targeted by the CCTUC stands to gain so much from these efforts, ballot access, registered voters, donors, activists, state and local candidates, etc. I personally cannot understand their apprehension.
The Independent American Party, particularly in Nevada, has been a long time affiliate and aid to the Constitution Party, just like the Independent Green Party of Virginia has been to them in their state. The American Independent Party is their former state affiliate in California. One would assume the Constitution Party would be eager to see the vision of the Clarion Call To Unite Committee to come to fruition, yet they have neither endorsed nor voiced public support for their efforts. One cannot help but question the reasoning for this. Does the national leadership of the party know something we do not? Are they simply not concerned with growing the party? Do they not want to gain ballot access? Grow in the number of registered voters? Perform better in election?Ponder for a second if you will what would happen if the goals of the CCTUC were realized. Think of the implications of their being only one constitutionally conservative alternative to the Republican party. Their would finally be a legitimate alternative party for which conservative republicans and TEA partiers and Ron Paul republicans to vote for when the GOP does nominate yet another moderate to liberal candidate. It seems that the other constitutionalists third parties realize this, why hasn’t the Constitution Party?
-Joshua Fauver
Joshua Fauver is the National Chairman of Young Constitutionalists and is the Vice-Chairman of the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCTUC). This was originally published yesterday on the website of Nevada IAP activist and CCTUC founder, Cody Quirk. The website is the Independent and Third Party News and Views (ITPNV), http://www.itpnv.com.
For more IPR coverage of the CCTUC and its efforts, head to the following links:
Seidenberg,
Why do you care about the paperwork of people trying to create a Constitution Party in CA? You have already successfully hijacked the AIP, and the SOS and courts seem to have sided with you – if they hadn’t, they would have done something by now. So why try to mess with the few hundred people trying to organize a separate CP? Are they a threat to your hundreds of thousands of registered AIP voters, most of whom had no idea they were even registering with any kind of political party at all?
Cody Quirk,
Comments on post 21. One major problem is Dr.
Don Grundmann, who currently is recognized by
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen as the
Chairman of the Constitution Party of California.
Frank is of the view that Mr. Johnson in the Chairman of that Political Body. However,
that seems to be at odds with the asseverations
of Dr. Don Grundmann.
It also seems to be at odds with what is posted on
the CP National Website. That website posts that
Dr. Don Grundmann in the California State Contact. It does not recognize Mr. Johnson who
was a highly qualified Chairman of the AIP about
13 years ago. I was told of the good job Mr. Johnson did by Mr. Short of Butte County, CA
who I studied with at Auburn, Alabama in the
Mises Institute.
Prior to joining the AIP, I was active in the John
Schmitz campaign for POTUS in 1972. I have worked with the AIP for many years before joining that party. I consider myself a “recovering Republican”, because I am a former
Member of UROC. In fact even though I am a Senior Citizen, at one point in time I was a TAM
(Teenage Member of United Republicans of California). I started my recovery in 2004.
In fact my first campaign was for the race of Joe
Shell for Governor in the California Primary of
1962. I have been trying to fight the good fight
for about 51 years.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party of California
They sold it to the highest bidder. It just happened to be Baldwin.
Bloomberg has been outspoken on guns and many other issues for quite a few years and the IGP has never stopped backing him. I’ve corresponded with them about it recently.
Their #1 (almost single) issue is building government mass transit, specifically rail.
Believe me, it’s not that simple with the AIP, there are past animosities that are trying to get mended, plus the specifics on such a topic are still going to have to be negotiated.
On the matter of Bloomberg- that was long ago when the former mayor wasn’t as outspoken then as he is on gun control now -and was popular with third parties at the time.
The Virginia IGP also could’ve picked somebody more well known or centrist-oriented to place on their ballot for president back in 2008, yet they picked Chuck Baldwin. Nuff’ Said
So the AIP is all set to reunite with no strings attached? Why haven’t they done it already then?
And thet Independent Greens, who support mass expansion of government transit and gun grabbing NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, are ideologically in line with you?
Mr. Gemma,
With all due respect my extracurricular activities are an entirely private matter and none of your concern. I do not make it a point to inquire on how things are going for you on the fundraising side of things and ask if your “extracurricular activities are taking time away from fundraising and would be glad if you showed me the same respect. If the C.P should adopt the idea of a merger I’ll be able to say that what I accomplished was to help gain ballot access we’ve been struggling to get for years, helped reconnect the California party, helped increase our registered voters, eliminate competition, and unite a movement. I’ll look forward to hearing how you helped our financial situation Mr. Gemma.
Welcome back Cody
Thanks. And to answer Mr. Hill-
The Conservative Party is one of the ones that we considered too moderate; they are neoconservative in their beliefs/platform, and backed Mitt Romney in the general election- nuff’ said.
Glad to have you back, Cody 🙂
Since this great effort has picked up a lot of steam and is becoming realistically possible to accomplish soon enough, and there are many on here that have questions- along with things going more smoothly on IPR -I guess I minus well come back on here and start posting again.
Though it won’t be like was in the past; my time is devoted to work, school, and party-building, especially with the CCTUC, so I have more important things to do with my time then telling off people that I think deserve it, and/or waging pissing contests with others.
To answer a few questions though:
* No, we did not make any ‘backroom deals’ with the AIP. When we contacted them and talked to them about merging all the constitutionalist parties together, they were receptive and willing to talk about it, and they will certainly be at the CCTUC conference coming up in 2 weeks.
* I beg to differ on the Virgina IGP, Trent.
They have been worthy allies of the CP and they support the efforts of the CCTUC 100%
* Again, we have only reached out to the state/national third parties that were firmly constitutionalist/principled conservative in their platform and beliefs (or basically mirror the CP in their platform/beliefs) and have rejected talking to any of the others that are either too moderate, or too extremist.
However, that matters little, since such parties on both extremes haven’t approached us at all.
Nevertheless, despite the early dismissals and doubts from many about bringing these parties together; we’ve exceeded such expectations and will make a nationally unified constitutionalist party a reality soon enough.
Not sure if it will be worth it to go myself. Probably not. I have some unfinished business to discuss with them. Most likely will handle it by phone and email. Some other people I know who live closer to there may be interested in going; I’m not sure if they will.
@12
April 20th. Hopefully Peter Gemma will be able to live blog the meeting since he’s both a national committee member and IPR contributor.
http://constitutionparty.com/GetInvolved/Events/tabid/139/Default.aspx
It’s April now, which date will the meeting be?
@10
Baltimore, this April.
When and where is the next national committee meeting?
Joshua –
Does this extra-curricula activity stand in the way of your CP assignment?
I suspect you’ll be called on at the next Nat’l Com meeting for a report on how many young people you’ve recruited, how many high school and college campuses have chapters, how many talks you’ve given, etc.
If you want to devote time to the CCTUC scheme that’s fine – but you should be ready to give positive reports on your official CP duties; I doubt anyone will ask you about CCTUC.
Ballot-qualified IAPs are already on board with the CP. The AIP in CA would certainly be significant, but if they are open to reuniting with the CP, why haven’t they done it already, and what are they asking for? Seems suspicious. The Independent Greens support mass transit and Michael Bloomberg; doesn’t sound very CP-like to me, other than their willingness to sell ballot access to the highest bidder, which happened to be the CP in at least one election.
The only other right wing parties that I can think off with ballot access anywhere, Conservative and Prohibition, are not part of this.
Doomed to failure or not, I commend Cody for making the effort. This effort is akin to every party with the word “socialist” or “progressive” or “labor” or “workers” in it to unite. That is unlikely to happen either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Greens_of_Virginia
Doesn’t sound like they have much affiliation with the Constitution Party or ideology, other than selling the ballot line to Chuck Baldwin.
As long as so many minor parties remain political clubs instead of political parties, I expect no unity. Too many people would rather be vice chairman and treasurer of their little dungholes than actually have to take a backseat to advance their causes.
Several parties have hopped on board with their efforts to unite the several constitutionalists parties. Among those on board include the Independent American Party, the American Independent Party of California,
AIP of CA? Really? On what terms?
“Does the national leadership of the party know something we do not?”
Yep.
The Independent American Party, particularly in Nevada, has been a long time affiliate and aid to the Constitution Party, just like the Independent Green Party of Virginia has been to them in their state.
Huh? IGP of Virginia a long time affiliate of the CP…?
If they were pre-disposed to this organization, then this article would’ve swayed them against it by asking condescending questions.
Ultimately, they know this is a useless endeavor. Combining the Independent Greens with the AIP? C’mon, don’t be dumb.