Constitution Party Candidate, Darrell Castle, Says He’s More Libertarian Than Gary Johnson

Darrell Castle is The Constitution Party’s candidate for president this year, and I was fortunate enough to come in contact with his campaign. They were very kind, and when I asked Mr. Castle for an interview he was more than willing to do so. The following are the questions and answers which were given through email.

For any who may be unfamiliar with you, could you please tell a little about yourself and about The Constitution Party?

I was born on a small farm in East Tennessee. I have degrees in History and Political science from East Tennessee State University and a Law degree from The University of Memphis. I was a Commissioned Officer in the United States Marine Corps with foreign service around the world.

In 1992 the Constitution Party was founded by a group of men who were all inspired by one man, Howard Phillips. I was one of those men so 24 years in the Constitution Party. It was founded on the principle that the original intent of the founders was still relevant and could be intellectually defended to the nation. I still believe that today.

I served 3 terms as National Vice Chairman of the Party and 3 terms as chairman of the Platform Committee. In 2008 I was a candidate for Vice President of the United States.

This year’s political climate is ripe for a third party, what is your plan to stand out to voters as a viable alternative to Trump and Clinton?

My plan to stand out is to travel the country and speak to as many people as possible. It is easier to stand out now with the new technology of social media and Internet but more difficult with a virtually total media blackout of my campaign in the mainstream media. I distinguish myself as the only candidate who seeks to save the Constitution and the rule of law in general. It will be dead if one of the others is elected.

With the nomination of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, many Libertarians, myself included, are feeling disenfranchised. What is your pitch to those voters? Why should libertarians support you?

Libertarians should support me because I am more Libertarian than the two candidates of that Party. They are both CFR members, both open borders and both pro abortion. I am the opposite on those issues while holding Libertarian like views on many other issues.

I’ve heard you say that you’re in favor of a “secure border.” What exactly would your immigration policy entail? Is it the same or similar to Donald Trump’s and what is the constitutional basis for your policy?

I believe that securing the border, i.e. protecting it so that no one enters without consent and halting immigration completely until that is accomplished is one of the most important issues America faces. The halt to immigration would last until we could be sure who is coming in and with what intent.

Do you see yourself taking an interventionist approach or non-interventionist approach to foreign policy? How would a Castle administration handle our foreign conflicts?

I am a non-interventionist, mind your own business candidate. I would only involve us in foreign conflicts if the United States was directly threatened and in danger.

What’s your view of the drug war? And what would be your approach to drugs, as President, from a constitutional standing?

I view the drug war as a total failure and would stop it immediately. The United States certainly has a right to determine what crosses its borders but in general drug policy should be on the state level. I personally favor decriminalization of drugs.

This next question ties in with drug policy. Do you see a role for the federal government in regulating and/or prohibiting things such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships or any other activities made by consenting adults?

No I really don’t. The states are free of course to regulate if their people prefer but I see no Constitutional role in such things except possibly to control the spread of pandemic disease or something of that nature.

If you are elected president and could only accomplish 3 things, what would they be?

Secure the borders/Control immigration.

Withdraw from the United Nations, NATO, TPP, Nafta, Cafta, Gatt, WTO, etc.

End the Federal Reserve and return monetary policy to Congress where the Constitution places it.

Rapid Fire:

Who would you nominate for the supreme court?

Herb Titus. He’s a Harvard lawyer and Constitutional lawyer and an old friend.

How many states do you plan on having ballot access in?

I plan on 42 and we are working hard on it.

In 2008, Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin and yourself when you were the VP candidate for The Constitution Party. Are you seeking Dr. Paul’s endorsement now?

Yes I am seeking Dr. Paul’s endorsement and would be honored by it.

And finally, is taxation theft?

Yes, especially when we are directly taxed by the federal government

I would like to publicly thank Mr. Castle for taking the time to partake in this interview. If you would like to know more about Darrell Castle and his campaign then please go to Castle2016.com and you can find him on various social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

  • SMH2much

    Go Castle!!!

    • Louis Charles

      People… let’s debate what the CP would do if they had a majority of their reps running a county commission, a sheriff’s department, and a court house (DA and Judge). Then we can argue about what we would do with a majority in a state house and governor’s mansion….. Perhaps after running a few states, men like Mr. Castle and Herb Titus would be relevant on a federal level.

      • SMH2much

        There are many constitutionist sheriff’s protecting their counties. The party they file under is irrelevant.

        • Louis Charles

          No. The party that nominates them is VERY relevant. …as is the party which funds their election. The GOP and dems are NOT parties who give a rat’s ass about a Constitutionally limited government. I guess your standards of “constitutionalist sheriif” is a far cry from what I expect…..

          • SMH2much

            Funny. People come in every size, shape & belief the last time I looked. To stand any chance of winning, they choose what they’ve always chosen, a well known party. Even Amash, Massie, Paul, ran republican. They are Libertarian’s, or mostly libertarian, not completely libertarian. The people chose them because of their values, & because they were in their party choice. The CP isn’t well known, not even a mention in the primaries in local voting, until recently. Expecting candidates to know a 3rd party exists, takes time. Independent, was close, but no cigar either.
            But, hey, thanks for the giggle.

          • Louis Charles

            SMH. I have no idea who you are, or who butters your bread. And normally with a stupid sign-off as you posted, I wouldn’t waste my enerigy tapping keys… But in the hope that someone with an eye for the truth might also read this I offer you two simple questions: 1.) Do you know what a shill is? and 2.) Do you believe if the GOP didn’t want those men holding office they would have been votescammed out of their respective primaries? This is not to infer that those 3 men are insincere in their affinity for principle, but they are there because the New World Order, globalist socialist/fascist front running the GOP allows them to be there. They serve a purpose. Again, I refer you to question #1. As a bonus question: Do you really believe the Constitution, as our framers prescribed stands a chance with only 2 viable choices on the ballot?

            Happy 4th of July, mr. giggles……

          • SMH2much

            The last time I looked, local offices are not scrutinized by the party lines. When asked, the candidates usually respond with which party they probably most identify with. Half of them don’t know what they are, they’re just tired of the corruption & nonsense & want to fix the system. The other half are die hard party peeps, no matter the direction the party has taken. There aren’t many true colors today. Even the LP has been infiltrated by the leftists and the greenies.
            Castle just wants the country back to what the Framer’s had in mind.

  • Tannim

    No questions asked about the CP’s batshit wrong ideas on the First Amendment of their theocratic nuttery?

    • SMH2much

      You would first need to read & understand the constitution & the Declaration of Independence to ever understand that the government’s constitutional role is extremely limited and defined. Unless you are an issue on the limited & defined role of govt, such as war, peace, negotiations, commerce, all of which are foreign matters, I sincerely doubt that your 1st amendment will ever be threatened.
      Read his site at castle2016.com
      But, nice try Killary fan.

      • Denny J.

        Actually the 1st Amendment is continually infringed by the states (not to mention the 4th, 5th, 8th, etc.) and the little bit of federal relief from such infringements as now exists, would vanish if Bible-banging rodents like Castle had their way.

        • SMH2much

          A constitutionist will threaten the constitution by defending & protecting it? I see…..
          Not.

          • Denny J.

            When that “constitutionist” [sic] wishes to interpret the Bill of Rights through the lens of the Book of Leviticus, yeah, they tend to do that.

          • SMH2much

            I can read the LP party page, circle my finger over the candidates, close my eyes and pick a horse for the race and the horse will be the epitome of the LP page?
            Perry & Petersen are exactly alike? Johnson & McAfee are twins?

          • SMH2much

            They follow & adhere to the founding Fathers original intent. You don’t like their intent, move to another country or tell them all about it. I’m sure they’re just dieting to hear your interpretation of their intent.

          • Denny J.

            The Founding Fathers had wildly divergent opinions about nearly everything. Sorry to have to point that out.

        • IvanRider

          The minute your irrational, demonic vitriol against the Bible foamed from your mouth, your true agenda betrayed itself. You care nothing about what liberty actually is, nor how to secure it. All you care about is your hatred of Christendom, spoonfed to you by the enemies of life and justice.

          • Denny J.

            Plenty of Christians do not fall under the description “Bible-banging rodents like Castle.”

      • GeorgeDance

        Funny how people can keep reading the Constitution and missing those prohibitions on immigration and abortion in Article I, Section 8, isn’t it?

        • Antodav

          I don’t know where you’re getting prohibitions on immigration or abortion from in that section. It says nothing whatsoever about abortion, and the only thing it says pertaining to immigration is that Congress has the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization”, which could mean anything, including open borders.

          • Tannim

            He was being sarcastic and it was lost on you theocratic simpleton nutcases.

          • GeorgeDance

            Maybe I needed to give a alert. Article I, Section 8 gives the federal government *no* authority over either abortions or immigration. Yet here’s Castle wanting to ban both. That’s not only not libertarian; it’s not even constitutional.

          • Barb Kazor Sherry

            First oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Let’s look at what he is swearing to defend, in the preamble. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of … Sort of elementary to me. Border security is defending the Constitution’s directive to provide for the common defense. You gotta twist much to say it isn’t necessary at these times. The right to life is in our Declaration, and a documentary foundational to our very essence as a nation and upon which we fought for the forming of our Constitutional Republic. Both these points must be totally ignored in order misconstrue Castle’s and like minded stances of our leaders..

        • SMH2much

          What prohibitions? Halting the mass invasions until the alphabet soup swat teams are dismantled, the borders secured & proper ID & screening in check is not prohibition. You can’t eat at the cafe until the kitchen, waiter & chef are in place, same thing. Business is business. Had the libs of prepared for the customers, instead of allowing chaos and mismanagement of funds, everything would be different. Don’t go blaming those who know how to secure the borders & run a country.
          Abortion falls under the inalienable right to LIFE, liberty & the pursuit of happiness or property. It falls under the NAP, don’t do unto others what you don’t want them to do to you. Killing an innocent life is murder, not self defense from assaulters.

          • Barb Kazor Sherry

            Wow. You are hot. Keep it going.

      • Tannim

        Talk about someone being so stuck on stupid their gearshift broke off…

        I have forgotten more about the First Amendment and the Constitution than you could possibly learn with your single-digit IQ, will never be a supporter of felons, and am so far ahead of you on the Liberty curve that by the time you get your mental Yugo off its cinder blocks the road will have been repaved.

        • SMH2much

          If that were true, which is highly doubtful, then you would realize that Castle protects the 1A. Until your overly prized IQ (lol) can come up with something intelligent, I’m afraid you’ll forever be fooled by your handlers. Have a nice day.

  • Chris Luke Cromwell

    Not sure of what to think of the Constitution Party. They’re against Free Trade and Open Borders (they want to place a moratorium on all immigration). Along with the fact that they believe in banning all gambling (including State lotteries so at least they are consist here), are against legalizing drugs, and want to continue the government’s issuing of marriage licenses. Their foreign policy is vague but they want to at least have a Congressional Declaration of War for all military conflicts. They are also against birth right citizenship and any form or process of legalizing any of the illegal immigrants already here (which assumes that they are for mass deportations but they don’t out right say they are in support of it).

    • SMH2much

      They are for the real fair trade, & against the not so fair trade treaties being conjured up in the big black kettle & labeled fair trade.
      They want to make immigration sensible & legal again. Take away all those unconstitutional agencies, hire more patrol for the borders, build more Ellis island depots, buy computers, fingerprint & id equipment, provide education classes on the Constitution, screen for diseases, etc, … proper & legal. It can’t be done today with the WH donating billions of dollars to the UN, arming up the alphabet soup agencies like the marines, bribing towns to accept grant funds with UN strings attached, and so on. Darrell wants things done right & true.
      Darrell wants govt out of the lives of civilians, and focused on the limited and defined duties delegated to govt by the Framer’s. This means, his nose won’t be in your gambling hall. He wants govt out of marriage, which means it’s not up to him to decide anything that happens in your bdrm. He wants govt out of the drug wars, it’s not govts job to babysit what you the consumer consensualy purchase. But he will guard the borders from bad drugs & blackmarket commodities.
      Birthright citizenship is not constitutional unless one of the parents is a native born.
      Check out his site at castle2016 .com

      • Chris Luke Cromwell

        A lot of what you said is vastly different than what is on the Constitution Party’s website under their platform for this election cycle.

        Fair trade is okay but the CP says, “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 policy that the CP adopt strictly reflects protectionist policies and views free trade in a negative light. Protectionism reduces competition and raises prices of goods and services all for the sake of our jobs just because someone else can make something cheaper and better than a company within the US.

        I get what you are saying in terms of Immigration reform but the issue of there being 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the US and on how to deal with it was what I was addressing. The CP says, “we oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other taxpayer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal alien parents while in this country,” along with, “we oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens,” and lastly this, “we oppose the abuse of the H-1B and L-1 visa provisions of the immigration act which are displacing American workers with foreign.” These quotes point out that the CP has protectionist policies in relation to immigration as well since labor is a commodity, along with the fact that the only alternative that is left is mass deportation since they don’t want illegals in any way to obtain legal status. In fact mass deportations hurt our economy because of the shuttering of businesses, lost revenues from mortgages and rent no longer being paid, and the demand for labor that others do not want to do increases with not any one wanting to fill them.

        I agree I don’t like the UN either, and think we need to scale back our involvement in that non-democratic society.

        I disagree on what you said on the gambling policy stating that he wouldn’t interfere with it. On the CPs platform it states, “we are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling such as lotteries, casinos or subsidization of Native American casinos.”

        I also disagree on what you said about them wanting to get government out of the business of marriage since the CP stance is “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.” If anything the CP wants the government to be more involved in marriage.

        Darrell Castle said in an interview with Judy Frankel of the Huffington Post, “The Constitution party’s official position is we don’t believe in legalizing drugs, you’re right. But me personally, I have said all along that I am an advocate of decriminalizing possession.” While his position on the War on Drugs isn’t that bad it still has flaws, because the only way to stop the drug war and to end smuggling of bad drugs and black market commodities is to legalize drugs. Once drugs are legalized, they can be regulated, and taxed allowing for companies to form and sell them, thus creating competition and driving up the quality (and safety) while driving down the costs, meaning that the cartels and gangs have less of a monopoly and market share crippling their revenues that cartels bring in which will have a negative correlation with their other black market commodities.

        Also Birth Right Citizenship does allow people to be citizens if born in the United States via the 14th Amendment which provides citizenship by either by ‘jus soli’ or ‘jus sanguinis’.

        • SMH2much

          I enjoy your debate.
          The fair trade they don’t like are the bad ones that just keep getting worse with every new treaty. Go back in time to when it was really free trade, fair & square, for that one day… that’s the goal, to get the fair & square back.

          The casinos, marriage, etc that you have quoted are from the party, not from Castle. Look how far off Johnson & Weld are from the party. Or Trump with his. Or Petersen or Perry or any candidate. You have to take into consideration what the party hopes for and what the party goes with. What the party goes with is the candidate they tolerate, like, what have you. Castle’s stances are on his site at castle2016.com. He overlays in many instances, but not all. He also asserts what his role as president is, despite his personal opinion on any subject. Also, the national cp and the various states, each have overtones of strictness, but further reading usually clarifies their openness to being neutral & helpful above all. For instance, their knee jerk reaction is to say absolutely not to drugs, but then they promote education, rehab, ratings, .. Perry, a libertarian candidate, is the opposite knee jerk reaction. He says absolutely yes to drugs, no debates, no compromising, no NAP.
          Depending on which camp you’re in, the heart will go wth the absolutely that most suits, no more questions or further investigating required. This is unfortunate.

          Legalizing the war on drugs is a political & corporate move. It doesn’t do anything but make money for them, imprisonsor confiscates the property of good people if they fail one rule, and makes the medicine more expensive. Decriminalizing, on the other hand, allows certain amounts per person, per state. Nobody is robbed by the regulatory committees, political taxes, or govt studies. The borders will be guarded, not you.

        • Barb Kazor Sherry

          A agree with the CP policy on all you just outlined as you did. Especially decriminalizing instead of legalizing. Thanks for making it clearer.

  • Louis Charles

    Oh, why do these people, in the name of Jesus Christ, make the same silly mistake as the Libertarian Party?… the same mistake which has gotten them stuck in the mud going nowhere! Americans, by and large are so far from accepting the idea that 1776 (or 1789) is still relevant in 2016. Now, the libertarians at least decided to pick NH with the Free State Project to concentrate their forces… but they are still falling short. How ’bout a Free County Project for the Constitution Party. I can name about 20 small counties in the Bible Belt that might seriously accept what the CP prescribes. “Aim Small; Miss Small” said Ben Martin in Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot” back in y2k. When the CP proves the ideals are still workable somewhere, I bet it wouldn’t be too long until a good part of that respective state tells the elephant and jackAss to take a hike! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the simple marketing technique which allows it’s sales force to have working prototype with which to show the prospective clientele`. I’d relocate to that county in a heartbeat. Please contact me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss this concept further.

    • IvanRider

      What’s being practiced instead is what isn’t working. Moral wisdom never ceases to be wise, but immoral men will always hold it in contempt, no matter the year.

  • GeorgeDance

    Amazing: So Castle claims to be a “libertarian” because he wants to outlaw abortions and immigration. The only thing more amazing is that there probably are self-described “libertarians” out there who think that’s the litmus test.

    • My easy litmus test has always been, does that person support legalizing mariuana (without using quibble words)? If not then I would disregard any such claim. I realized there is more to the equation than legalizing marijuana but it kept me from wasting much time when Republicans claimed to be leaning libertarian.

      • Barb Kazor Sherry

        NOT legalizing, but decriminalized, like in the Netherlands.

        • Persuade me on how decriminalization is better than legalization.

    • jabwocky

      No, he didn’t claim to be a “libertarian” , I would ask you to read the article again, and show me where he said that…
      He says he’s more Libertarian than Gary Johnson, and he holds libertarian views on many things, but never said he was a Libertarian…

      • GeorgeDance

        Oh, so he’s not claiming to be “a libertarian” – just “more Libertarian” than the Libertarian Party candidate. Sort of like: if I said I was “more Catholic than the Pope”, I wouldn’t really be claiming to be “a Catholic”. Sheeesh…

        • jabwocky

          He’s right though, Libertarians are generally considered to be far right, absence of government, and a number of Gary Johnson’s positions fall fairly left…
          Amazed me actually, but they are pretty deal breakers for me…

          • Barb Kazor Sherry

            Exactly what I found too. I see in Castle a more reasoned approach, he takes on Trump’s stances on some things, Cruz on many, Paul on most (Paul being my first pick in the elections), and they ALL are more libertarian than Johnson. I just did a little research into Johnson and dropped him like a hot potato. I really like Castle.

          • jabwocky

            My point exactly, if you aren’t voting mainstream, at least vote for the better candidate…

    • Eugene Edward Yeo

      The right to Life is the fundamental Liberty: all others are built upon it. I’m not sure how one can defend closing the borders as a Libertarian stance, however.

      • Barb Kazor Sherry

        AGain, hyperbole. Closing the borders until we get a handle on it is akin to what he stated even in this article. He is not “closing” borders to immigration, but to illegal immigrants, and as in many times in history past, suspended immigration until they put in place a system to vet immigration. There is a big difference between that and your flat out statement. Please reconsider and remember much is riding on this election. I am on my way out of this world, unlike many on this feed who are just starting. His is a reasoned approach to immigration and borders and is in line with Trump’s, I believe. We have to get a handle on it before we become the quagmire which is Europe trying desperately to muddle through this mess. A presidents #1 job and oath is to provide for our safety and defense. Leaving borders open at this time, with an enemy who announces continuously they intend to infiltrate our border to bring “death” to us is naive to think we can do anything other than what he puts forward.

    • Barb Kazor Sherry

      To take this interview alone and state that is disingenuous. To disagree with some of his policies is understandable, but you give me one candidate you can agree with more on Libertarian concerns. He clear and reasoned in his responses, however in such a short interview unable to expound. You could go to the website and read further. It is quite a well developed website that has addressed many of my questions. I would hope your remarks are not all the further you wish to go at such a critical time in our history. I’m on my way out of this life, but for others, perhaps you, the results of this election will set the course of our nation and its citizens for many years to come, good or bad. Please make your choice wisely in this election and rise above the temptation to be cynical. Castle has critics. I’ve been reading them too, but found their critics either unfounded, or I simply disagree. That’s okay. But, I truly believe he remains, as does this parties platform, a real possibility to right this sinking ship, the United States.

  • Antodav

    Not bad, except for immigration. However, this presents a far from complete picture of the CP platform. They don’t believe in the First Amendment, at least not for anyone who isn’t an Evangelical Protestant.

    • IvanRider

      Elaborate.

  • For the two issues I give more weight to are foreign policy and the Federal Reserve. In the Q&A above Castle stated:

    Do you see yourself taking an interventionist approach or non-interventionist approach to foreign policy? How would a Castle administration handle our foreign conflicts?

    I am a non-interventionist, mind your own business candidate. I would only involve us in foreign conflicts if the United States was directly threatened and in danger.

    When asked if he could only accomplish three things as president the third was:

    End the Federal Reserve and return monetary policy to Congress where the Constitution places it.

    Which is not get government out of the monetary policy business. Johnson has a better position on this but I will let foreign policy outweigh monetary policy.

    Advantage: Castle

    • Barb Kazor Sherry

      Things have changed since WWII immensely. The only reason the Jefferson administration attacked the Muslim terrorists back then was because they were attacking us at sea without provocation. We won. And our government put at bay their aggression and made note of the evil they were even at that time. For all your Muslim’s reading this, its a matter of history, and if you’re offended, ask yourself if your are a terrorist. If you’re not, then it doesn’t apply to you, does it. But, his approach to all these treaties is to visit them and consider any changes that need to be made in light of all that has changed since WWII. Also, Israel does not have a formal written treaty with the US yet we funnel money to them unabated and growing forever. That doesn’t mean he is against Israel. Since WWII the map has changed all over the world. This must be taken into account with long standing agreements that may very well be outdated, including NATO.

  • DeaconofDemons

    I agree with Ron Paul. Darrell Castle over Gary Johnson…all day.

  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk

    Darrell can STFU on his claims of being more libertarian then Gary Johnson now.

    https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2016/07/18/no-darrell-castle-is-not-more-libertarian-then-gary-johnson/

  • Why would he nominate Herb Titus? Herb is 78. Not smart, regardless of how great he might be.

  • karl john

    He is the new Ron Paul

  • We the People of the Lone Star State are taking action and organizing with the launch of CCAC-Texas at 9pm on Monday night, July 25. For details visit CCAC-US.com and join our inaugural conference call early to ensure you get a seat. Use the information gained to form your own State’s CCAC. Spread the word that “We the People don’t need no stinkin’ political parties!” Be sure to Like and Share my “Landholt for Congress” page on FB.

  • John Ash

    Oh, please. Anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-brown people, anti-vice religious nuts. These guys are all a bunch of angry WASPs that couldn’t care less about the Constitution. They are a thinly disguised white supremacist group.

  • David Kramer

    Gary Johnson is NOT a member of the CFR, but William Weld is.

    http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=W