Darrell Castle is Not a Serious or Legitimate Choice for President
Some libertarians, upset with the nomination of Gary Johnson, as well as the choices of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have begun pondering the possibility of voting for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle. He is scheduled to be on enough ballots (when including write-in eligible states) to theoretically win the election. However, deeper inspection into his record indicates a very frightening candidacy. While he is good on many issues which libertarians hold dear, on others, he and his party are as bad or worse than the Republicans and Democrats. These are the top ten reasons not to vote for the Constitution Party and Darrell Castle.
1. Immigration
Do you think Donald Trump is too lenient on immigration? Perhaps in that case, Castle might be the answer. However, for libertarians who generally favor a simpler path for potential workers, Castle’s policies seem absurd at best and draconian at worst.
According to ISideWith, using answers Castle himself supplied, he agrees with literally every Trump point on immigration. However, he goes even further, supporting a blanket ban on ALL immigration until the “border is secured.” Castle provides no definition for when the border would be deemed “secure” enough to again allow immigration. He bluntly ignores the failures of the current bureaucratic system, asserting that “There is a current pathway to citizenship: it is called ‘legal immigration.'”
Want to Read This List on One Page? Click Here!
2. Gay Rights
Castle has a very socially conservative (and seemingly anti-gay) record. He says on marriage and gay people that:
The battle for marriage and western civilization in general is being fought between the American people and the proponents of same sex marriage led by the United States government. Same sex couples have aligned themselves with the government’s relentless assault on Christian civilization and western civilization in general.
He also indicates that he is in opposition to allowing gay couples to adopt. In 2015, upon the Supreme Court’s ruling of same-sex marriage as a Constitutional right, the Constitution Party released a statement saying that it was an “unconstitutional decree that cannot legalize anything,” and equated the ruling with the Dred Scott decision.
3. Separation of Church and State
On the same topic of marriage, Castle goes on to suggest that the Bible is supreme to the Constitution, writing that:
The law of our creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to any judicial ruling or amending the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution re-defining marriage with any definition other than the Biblical standard.
The way in which Castle posits this belief would make one infer that he does not believe in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, created to prevent entanglement of government and religion. Indeed, the very first words of Constitution Party platform state:
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values. For this very reason peoples of all faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
4. Obscenity and Pornography
Castle has not taken occasion to address this particular issue, as it is not one which is seemingly pressing. However, the Constitution Party platform is so backwards and disturbing that it necessitates a double-take. Furthermore, it seems commiserate with the Party’s (and Castle’s) purported strong belief in so-called “Christian values” pervading the culture. It reads:
Pornography, obscenity and sexually oriented businesses are a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony. This results in emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities.
Due to a lack of prosecution, the sexually oriented business industry has proliferated, aggravating the problems of child pornography, human trafficking and sexually transmitted diseases. This is decreasing our safety by increasing crime rates, specifically rape and molestation in additional to the loss of dignity belonging to all human beings.
We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing all laws against obscenity.
5. Death Penalty
Despite being markedly pro-life, Castle and the Constitution Party support the death penalty. The Party platform states that “We favor the right of states and localities to execute criminals convicted of capital crimes and to require restitution for the victims of criminals.” In another topic closely linked to state control of “life and death,” Castle also opposes allowing patients to end their lives via assisted suicide.
6. Free Trade
Castle takes a position eerily similar to Donald Trump, stating that he is “in favor of free trade” but that deals like the TPP risk American sovereignty. However, the Constitution Party platform sounds more like the protectionist positions of Trump and Bernie Sanders, stating that:
Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.
We oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America’s economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America’s capacity for economic self-reliance, and the provision of national defense.
This passage continues on a borderline conspiratorial thought, suggesting:
We see our country and its workers as more than bargaining chips for multinational corporations and international banks in their ill-conceived and evil New World Order.
7. Campaign Speech and Term Limits
Darrell Castle has indicated that Super PACs should not be permitted to donate to political candidates, saying that “as a matter of public policy, it is very detrimental to the nation to allow large corporations to buy candidates and elections.” He also opposes term limits, quipping that we have already have them in the form of elections. He is also against the use of an independent redistricting commission to end the dubious practice of gerrymandering.
8. Second Amendment Liability
Despite being fairly pro-gun and in favor of the Second Amendment, Castle has a curious answer on the question of whether gun manufacturers should be held liable for the harms created by their products.
When asked “Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers?” Castle responded, “Yes, no corporation should be immune from the possibility that their product after being introduced into public commerce was defective, etc. and caused harm.” This answer places his much further to the left of this issue than even socialist Bernie Sanders, who gained the scorn of some Democrats for refusing to support prosecution of such vendors.
9. Net Neutrality
On another more contemporary free speech issue, Castle takes a dubious position. When asked “Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)?” Castle responded with the Orwellian answer that “No, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet.”
10. Eminent Domain
In another issue aligning him with Donald Trump, Castle supports the use of eminent domain. Asked “Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use?” Castle responded “Yes, as permitted by the Constitution when the seizure is necessary for public use and when fair market value is paid to the property owner.”