"The Constitution does not need to be scrapped; it needs to be abided by," thundered Jim Clymer, Constitution Party vice presidential candidate and former party chairman, to a smattering of an audience at the 2012 Ron Paul Festival, as hundreds more people frequented the vendors in the neighboring Expo Hall.
Clymer, an attorney from Pennsylvania, appeared at the Florida State Fairgrounds on behalf of running mate Virgil Goode, former U.S. congressman and Virginia senator and Constitution Party presidential nominee, who was unable to attend Paul Fest due to prior commitments.
Goode and Clymer are running on a hybrid platform between traditionalist conservatism and libertarianism. His speech, a summary of his party's political platform, drew mixed reaction from the
crowd of Paul supporters.
Sunshine State News caught up to Clymer shortly after he delivered his remarks.
Asked why he and Goode were campaigning against the nations major center-right political coalition, the Republican Party, Clymer makes some unconventional observations.
If you look at history, unfortunately, I think the Republicans have done more to erode our liberty than the Democrats, he says, though he is quick to qualify his remarks. Let me clarify that: not intentionally. I think the Democrats are more perverse in their intentions than the Republicans, but what happens and we saw this during the Bush years, both Bushes whenever there is a Republican in the White House, the Republicans in Congress all of sudden become jellyfish, losing their backbones. Whereas when a Democrat does the same thing a Republican might otherwise do, [congressional Republicans] rise up, they holler, they scream, they oppose that; but thats not what they do when theres a Republican in the White House.
By way of example, Clymer names the Patriot Act, TARP, and other government bailouts of private industries. When Obamas doing it, its terrible; but when Bush does it, theyre muted,
Of course, he does acknowledge political exceptions to this trend, and one in particular: Texas Republican congressman and primary presidential candidate Ron Paul. But look at these exceptions, theyre excoriated by Republican leadership, he insists. I dont think thered be much difference in terms of fundamental policy between an Obama and a Romney administration.
Americas third-parties are something of a mystery to most voters, and some might be forgiven for wondering what substantive differences, if any, exist between two of the more well-known: the Constiutionalists and the Libertarians.
Both call for a massive scaling back of the powers of the federal government to those of a handful of powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. They both propose abolition of the IRS and the income tax, along with most executive departments short of those pertaining to the military. Theyre both staunchly civil libertarian, demanding repeal of the Patriot Act and the latest incarnation of the National Defense Authorization Act; they both want to end foreign aid and military nation-building, recalling all troops from armed conflicts and foreign occupations that are not defensive and not authorized by Congress. Both parties also want most controversial social and religious questions handled by state and local governments.
But for Clymer, the most fundamental differences between the two parties are not so much in their concrete policy proposals (though there are significant differences even there) as in their philosophical premises.
A fundamental difference between us and the Libertarian Party is that the Constitution Party believes that the foundation of our law, our jurisprudence, and our legal system is rooted in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Thats a foundation that supersedes everything else, says Clymer, himself a former Libertarian party member and political candidate for state office. The Libertarian Party on the other hand, has a more secular viewpoint.I dont want to put words in their mouth, but I think its fair to say they believe its whatever the mind of man can create that is his pole star. But that can shift. We [Constitutionalists] believe that there are eternal principles.
Asked why he and his party will not join forces with presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his Libertarians, Clymer insists Constitutionalists cannot accept [Johnsons] support of homosexual marriage or his pro-abortion position. We believe all human life is precious and that the first duty of law is to protect all innocent human life, include the unborn. They are persons who deserve the protections the Constitution is designed to give.
Clymer says he and his fellow party members support Pauls position that abortion is a matter that, under the present constitutional and statutory provisions, should be left to the states. But I would go further, he says. Clymer believes the federal government has a role in outlawing abortion but not without a constitutional amendment, or at least not without a declaration of [fetal] personhood on the part of Congress.
Clymer is a little ambiguous about whether the unborn really are persons according to the original public meaning of Fifth and 14th Amendments, but he agrees that the best way to resolve this issue is constitutionally. But until we get there, Id be thrilled with Dr. Pauls proposal: keep the federal government out of it and let it go to the states. Thats clearly a step in the right direction, and frankly thats [a course] the framers [of the Constitution] would have anticipated and intended.
His approach to same-sex marriage is similar. His presidential running mate, Virgil Goode, supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, so we dont have some states forcing same-sex marriage on others through the Constitutions full faith and credit clause," a highly contested provision of U.S. law that requires each state to respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Virgil Goodes position is that without a constitutional amendment, were going to continue to run into problems, with homosexual marriages recognized in one state, but opposed in another, Clymer explains. Were already seeing this in custody disputes.
Clymer himself prefers Pauls position: keeping the government completely out of defining, penalizing, or otherwise subsidizing marriages, leaving individuals to define marriage however they please, with the state limiting itself to settling contractual disputes that might arise.
I think that if the federal government just follows the Constitution, the rest of our traditional cultural values will fall into place by themselves, he says. But right now youve got the federal government promoting policies that are contrary to our culture, the heritage that weve known in this country.
But its not just social issues that distinguish his party from Libertarians.
Were not free-traders like they are. Were for fair trade, he explains. We freely trade with other countries, but we insist it be on a level playing field. If theyre going to be imposing restrictions on our goods going into their country, we're not going to allow two different standards.
We also believe that borders should be sealed, as borders are an important ingredient in the definition of a country, he adds.
Asked if his party supports drug legalization, he insists that is a state and local issue. The Constitution Party absolutely does want to end the federal war on drugs. He does concede that some of our members support strong anti-drug laws, but were fairly unified in opposing federal anti-drug laws, though we have our differences on what wed like to see on the local level. Clymer himself is personally very much a libertarian on the issue.
One of the low points of his speech, in terms of audience reception and reaction, was his promise that a Constitutionalist presidency would promote making English the official language of the United States. Clymer clarifies that he does not support federal laws which prevent states from adopting multilingualism, but if elected, Goodes administration will do everything it can to stop the federal government from telling states they have to print ballots and other government documents in multiple languages.
Clymer appears visibly discomforted when asked whether Congress has any express constitutional authority to determine the countrys official language. He admits a constitutional amendment would be the most clarifying way of doing it.
Finally, Clymer strongly implies he would drop out of the race in the unlikely event Paul receives the Republican nomination in the coming week. I cannot speak for Mr. Goode, but I would certainly be in favor of dropping out. Ive made that commitment before, that if somehow that should happen, that would be my desire. I would not want to run on a national ticket against Dr. Paul.
Reach Eric Giunta at egiunta@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859.
