A Response To Howard Phillips On The Nevada Issue
By Nathan Radcliffe The Covenant News ~ May 16, 2006
Howard Phillips has issued a statement attempting to justify his vote to uphold a pro-abortion Constitution Party state affiliate by arguing that the national party's bylaws do not allow the National Committee to interfere in the internal affairs of a state party by disaffiliating them. This is a poor argument.
Mr. Phillips points out that Article II, Section 2.2 of the national party bylaws state that upon application by a state party, the Credentials Committee chairman shall "make a determination of preliminary qualification upon finding that the state party or organization has" done four things, one of those things being "Pledged adherence to the Constitution Party platform." (Note that a "pledge" of adherence is sufficient even if this pledge is a lie.) Mr. Phillips argues that the Nevada party was accepted as an affiliate because it was in full compliance with Article II, Section 2.2 and, he says, "it remains in full compliance with those provisions."
However, the four qualifications listed in Article II, Section 2.2 of the bylaws are qualifications for a state party to be ACCEPTED as an affiliate. What Mr. Phillips ignores is the fact that the bylaws also state that "The National Committee shall have the power to grant state affiliate status by majority vote AND TO REVOKE STATE AFFILIATE STATUS by no less than two-thirds (2/3) vote of the entire committee registered at the meeting." There are no reasons listed for why a state party may be disaffiliated. The decision as to what would qualify a state party, after it has been accepted, to then later be disaffiliated is left entirely up to the opinion of the National Committee.
So Mr. Phillips and 56 other members of the National Committee have decided by their votes in Tampa that a state party's support for the murder of preborn babies is not a sufficient reason to disaffiliate a state party as long as the state party "pledges" adherence to the national platform.
As for Mr. Phillips' argument that Article III of the national party's Constitution prohibits the national party from directing "the internal affairs of any state affiliate," this is true. The national party has no authority to choose or remove state party officers or to determine which candidates a state party may or may not endorse, even if the state party chooses pro-abortion officers and/or candidates (which is exactly what the Nevada party has done). The national party, however, DOES have the authority to disaffiliate a state party which rejects the principles of the national party platform. Disaffiliation is not interference, it is practicing freedom of association.
Mr. Phillips' argument that the National Committee has no authority to disaffiliate a state party as long as the state party pledges adherence to the national platform because this would be interfering in the internal affairs of the state party is faulty. Having accepted this poor argument, the National Committee has made it clear that a state party may choose anyone as an officer or a candidate no matter how objectionable their views may be, as long as the state party claims they are adhering to the platform. The truth is irrelevant. If a state party chooses a Nazi as their state chairman or endorses a sodomite for pubic office, their is nothing the National Committee can do about it. And make no mistake about it -Nevada's support for pro-abortion officers and candidates is no less abhorrent!
The Constitution Party faced a crossroads in Tampa. Unfortunately, the National Committee chose to put politics and personalities over principle by voting to remain in covenant with pro-aborts.