I went over to the Constitution Party site (https://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/platform-and-resolutions/), just to see what those guys were all about. Some decent stuff, but some of their positions (e.g., return to the gold standard) are a bit loopy; and their stances on foreign policy and national defense are downright dangerous: did they learn nothing from the 20th Century?
All in all, they remind me of earnest doctrinaire libertarians with a different take on certain social issues.
As a matter of politics, their primary weakness is the assumption -- almost certainly unfounded -- that most people understand and share their view of the Constitution. The CP treats the Constitution as a fixed guide, upon which all agree, and as such it is the starting point for further discussion.
But they've got it backwards: the Constitution is the culmination of the Founders' thinking. It represents the end point -- no further discussion: this is what the government looks like. Unfortunately, the reality of modern politics is that not everybody has the same views on the Constitution. The debate has to be held again.
The only reason that debate might have to be held again is that people have become accustomed to the usurpation of power which has been accomplished by those at the Federal Level. Some people read into the Constitution a Right to murder babies in the womb, to force people to perform services for them (so far, baking cakes, arranging flowers and taking pictures, or the use of their property, but that will increase as the mindset does). Some people read that they have 'special' rights or privileges, by virtue of genetics or habits. And there are even some who read into it a right to prohibit others from doing things because they are somehow offended. etc. these 'found' rights are often in conflict with fundamental and long established rights enshrined in the Constitution and in legal precedent.
Branches of government have abdicated their Constitutional duties and those duties have either been ignored, neglected, or taken up by other branches of government which promulgate rules and regulations with the force of law and little or no Congressional oversight, or which rewrite laws to rule they are Constitutional. Everyone is legislating. Not their job.
That makes it difficult for the average person or small business to keep up with the changes, and that favors larger, existing businesses which can have a legal staff, HSE, or HR departments to keep up with that. A sole proprietorship doesn't have a chance. If those laws (you can be prosecuted, fined, or incarcerated for breaking them, so call it what you will, but they are laws) were written, discussed, and either approved or defeated by the branch of government which is tasked with producing legislation, there would be far fewer of them. There would not be time to generate that sheer volume of material. But then, if those laws did not usurp the power of the states to regulate things within their own several borders, they would not be needed. Let the power devolve. Then the States can choose what to prioritize, and act accordingly or not.
In the past few decades, things have been found in the Constitution I am sure the Framers didn't put there, and frankly, I can't find. Given that, and weak logical skills, it is no surprise that there are people who think they have a Constitutional Right to equal outcomes, not just equal opportunities. We have a whole Federal Department writing universal standards which virtually guarantee that level of ignorance of original intent and the philosophy behind it will continue or become worse. Again, a usurpation, combined with a distinct conflict of interest. (Federal Control vs Liberty)
It won't be straightened out any time soon, mainly because the problem is an educational one, and becoming a cultural one.
Going back to that basic framework (including repeal of the 17th Amendment), and even a more original (to the time of the Amendment) interpretation of the 16th Amendment would do much to curb the Federal Leviathan. (Income was not considered to include wages, but the income from investments. Working for wages is an exchange of a service or skill for something more universally accepted: money. An exchange, not income.) A balanced budget would be a nice start, too. That would mean stripping the Federal Government of a host of usurped powers and the agencies which wield them, and returning those powers to the states to regulate as they see fit and as their budgets will allow, or abolishing those controls and returning that power to the people directly. Which would mean the people, ultimately, would decide what would be done by government--that as a question of scope as well as intensity, and how that money would be raised.
At present we aren't on the gold standard. If anything, it is the oil standard: the 'petrodollar'. Only being the reserve currency, the unit accepted for petroleum sales worldwide, the currency oil is priced in, has permitted the tremendous 'overprinting' of the dollar and kept the currency afloat. Everyone has some, no one wants it to fold. If that status was removed, the dollar would not be worth anything but a small fraction of its current purchasing power, and would have to be exchanged for some other currency or commodity to engage in international trade.
This keeps us tied to the Saudis, despite out ability to produce enough oil for our own needs and/or import it from elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, for two), and to tap the vast resources available offshore on our continental shelf and in Alaska. (Keep in mind that if you split Alaska down the middle, Texas becomes the third largest state). Neither, with the exception of the Gulf of Mexico (as part of the continental shelf) has been well explored, and the GOM has plenty of room for wildcatting. So, despite the terrorists on 9/11 being overwhelmingly Saudi nationals, we have military forces deployed to defend that nation, our president bows to their leadership, and our (oil) industry is severely damaged by their market shenanigans as they try to shut it down, raising the value of the petrodollar by flooding the market with crude oil and hurting our international export trade.
By shifting their production quotas they control the value of the dollar in world markets, and because they are holding a lot of dollars, the value of their holdings as well.
