Chuck Baldwin: ‘Best’ candidate for ‘pro-traditional marriage’ voters; at odds with constitutional experts

“Chuck Baldwin is the best candidate for voters who cherish the institution of marriage between a man and a woman,” says the Pro-Traditional Marriage page at Chuck Baldwin’s new Web site. “Chuck does not consider the issue of marriage to be a contoversial [sic] issue or an issue that is exclusionary. It just makes common sense.”

Although Baldwin says he’s the best candidate for marriage traditionalists, he does not explain why. He doesn’t champion (or oppose) a federal definition of marriage, a constitutional amendment to define the institution, or anything at all, really, in the statement. He does articulate an opposition to children being raised by gay couples, but says nothing about how he, as POTUS, would achieve his vision of a nation without homosexual-headed families.

One of the main reasons for marriage is to provide a safe, loving and controversy free environment in which to raise children. Growing up is hard especially in the current environment that includes messages from music, video and other media encouraging young people to involve themselves in activities that are destructive and dangerous both physically and emotionally. Social experimentation is for people who are adults and willing to accept the consequences that might result. Children dealing with all of the trials and tribulations of growing up and becoming adults should not be used as a social experiment and Chuck Baldwin agrees.

The rest of his statement goes on to say absolutely nothing about what he would do as president:

Chuck also believes that the values of marriage between a man and a woman are very important. Values are something young people need and want. They need to know that the people in charge are willing to adhere to a set of values that put them first and foremost.

Once elected you can be sure that President Chuck Baldwin will always give the American people the “Real Deal.” He is a conservative who believes that the United States Constitution really is the law of the land and that marriage should always be between one man and one woman. We need your vote, your prayers and your financial support. Please join us as we work together to help move America forward.

Interestingly, he says in one sentence he “believes that the United States Constitution really is the law of the land and that marriage should always be between one man and one woman” — as if the Constitution and “traditional marriage” were in some way related.

It’s important to note that Chuck Baldwin’s interpretation of the Constitution seems to be quite liberal when it suits his socially conservative agenda. For example, he chides Barack Obama for opposing the federal partial-birth abortion ban, while Ron Paul (who supported the ban) admitted it was “constitutionally flawed,” and Kevin R.C. Gutzman, an anti-Roe, anti-partial-birth abortion paleo-constitutional expert and author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, also says it is unconstitutional.

Does Chuck Baldwin really believe that the Commerce Clause enables the federal government to regulate abortion?

31 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: ‘Best’ candidate for ‘pro-traditional marriage’ voters; at odds with constitutional experts

  1. G.E. Post author

    Voting for the partial-birth abortion ban was probably Ron Paul’s one act of cowardice in his entire career.

  2. Kevin R. C. Gutzman

    In what sense, exactly, am I “pro-life”? My only public comments on this issue are that _Roe v. Wade_ is unconstitutional, that the Court’s decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban is unconstitutional, and that partial-birth abortion is immoral.

  3. G.E. Post author

    I thought you were pro-life after listening to the interview linked. Sorry for the mischaracterization. The article will be amended.

  4. Melty Rox

    Whatever “values” means.
    Whatever “partial birth” means.
    I’m both pro-life and pro-choice though neither of these terms have anything to do with the abortion issue for me.
    Abortion. An issue riddled with buzzwords. It’ll continue to distract from things more important for as long as these buzzwords’re allowed to dominate the discussion.
    I am a pro-fetus anti-embryo pro-abortionist.
    As I see it, government interference in interpersonal contracts, such as marriage, is unconstitutional regardless of sex.

  5. MattSwartz

    Baldwin isn’t the only victim of an electoral culture that wants to know not only how a president would govern, but also how they feel.

  6. Eternaverse

    I think this only shows how irrational Chuck Baldwin is. He is not in any way even similar to a libertarian. He is a homophobic fascist and a religious zealot.

  7. G.E. Post author

    I also wonder where Baldwin stands on slavery, wife beating, marrying your cousin, etc. Also all very traditional and Biblical.

  8. paulie cannoli

    Who are you to question the millenia-old, time tested wisdom of the Biblical moral code, you Johnny come lately? We need to remember that doing away with these Godly traditions is a very recent liberal experiment that put us on the slippery slope to the virtual Sodom and Gemorah we are living in today.

  9. Lance Brown

    “I really hope my vote for Charles Jay can be counted.”

    It will be counted by Charles Jay…I would imagine he’d like to break 1000 this time.

  10. MattSwartz

    I also wonder where Baldwin stands on slavery, wife beating, marrying your cousin, etc. Also all very traditional and Biblical.

    Biblical, perhaps, but certainly not Christian, and certainly not in tune with the Western Civilization that Christianity helped create.

    Christians were the first people in the world to abolish slavery. It took them a long time, but first is still first. The Bible is a VERY anti domestic-violence document. Were you aware that John Calvin, protestant and Christian was the first guy ever to write a prohibition of domestic violence into civil law? He did this in Geneva.

    I’m not even going to address the marrying your cousin thing. Once people got enough science in them to realize that that was a way to get cross-eyed dimwits as children, the practice died out.

  11. TheOriginalAndy

    Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard that Chuck Baldwin opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage and believes that it should be left to the states.

  12. Mike Theodore

    You can have the states right argument, but if the federal government continues to stoke the flames, what progress can be made? We’ve had states rights, and only 2 states have gay marriage. But if we had President Baldwin looking down his nose at gay’s, how can we expect any change from anyone?

  13. G.E. Post author

    “Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard that Chuck Baldwin opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage and believes that it should be left to the states.”

    You are right, but you wouldn’t know it from this statement — which says nothing but simply appeals to uneducated people’s bigotry.

  14. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Could we leave the editorializing to the comments section? The whole last paragraph doesnt belong in the NEWS post.

  15. Trent Hill

    GE is free to ask them,or even to ediatorilize them–but to mix them with a news post is yellow journalism.

  16. G.E. Post author

    You mean the last paragraph of one sentence?

    “Does Chuck Baldwin really believe that the Commerce Clause enables the federal government to regulate abortion?”

    You really think that’s inappropriate?

    Or the paragraph before it, where I point out the differences between actual constitutionalists and Chuck Baldwin’s positions… That’s not appropriate, Trent? I’m confused. I don’t think there’s any editorializing in asking a question.

  17. G.E. Post author

    I think areas where candidates deviate from party platforms and/or the general philosophies they proport to espouse are relevant and newsworthy.

  18. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Of course there is editorializing in asking such a loaded question. You could say, “Baldwin’s understanding of the constitution differs from Lew Rockwell’s in that…” but to state it the way you did obviously obscures the nuetrality of the article.

  19. G.E. Post author

    I accept the criticism and public rebuke of fellow senior correspondent, Trent Hill, for the way I wrote the article.

    However, the question remains: Is Chuck Baldwin a constitutionalist?

    Does he really believe that abortion can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, or is the Constitution irrelevent in the pro-life struggle?

  20. Trent Hill

    GE,

    To be fair–your question is obvious. Baldwin is not a STRICT Constitutionalist. But one whose Christian and fundamentalist leanings obviously obscure his understanding of Constitutionalism on some key issues.

  21. G.E. Post author

    So the Constitution only matters to Rev. Baldwin when it’s convenient, then?

  22. Fred Church Ortiz

    Most who take the view that the Bill of Rights actually has rights in it would point to the 5th amendment’s due process clause. It’s also been put forward that the constitution’s use of terms like “citizen,” “inhabitant,” “persons,” create the practical necessity to define those terms. I remember the idea of simply removing the authority of the judiciary to judge abortion law was interesting, wasn’t that RP’s act (the one he wrote, not the one you mention)?

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen an explicitly originalist argument for any of the above.

  23. G.E. Post author

    Uh, the 5th amendment in no way applies to the states, Fred. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were to limit the FEDERAL government. You’re using a post-Lincoln constitutional argument. You’re already ceding to judicial and federal tyranny if you’re going to make a Bill of Rights argument for the federal government against the states.

  24. G.E. Post author

    So yeah, I’ll have to pass on Baldwin. He’s just too liberal for me! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *