Some of his ideas are very admirable. I agree we'd be better off adhering more to the Constitution.But not now. We've many other things much more important. Like preventing The Hildabeaste's assault on the White House.
Posted on 01/01/2004 9:48:48 PM PST by The_Eaglet
On December 15, 2003, Michael Peroutka announced his candidacy for the Constitution Party presidential nomination. In an interview on Radio Liberty hosted by Dr. Stan Monteith, Mr. Peroutka identified the need to restore loyalty to the Constitution as a key reason for his campaign for the presidency, In response to recent expansions in federal funding of education and the Medicare program, Peroutka explained how federal involvement went beyond Constitutional limits, Peroutka later explained, "The Constitution is a big stop sign that says, `Federal government, here is where you stop.' That's the way that began, and that's what we, frankly, need to return to." Dr. Monteith and Mr. Peroutka also discussed the work of the Institute on the Constitution, a non-partisan organization that educates the electorate on the founding documents of the United States government, along with their historical and philosophical premises. With the endorsement of Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party nominee in 2000, Peroutka expressed confidence in becoming the next standard-bearer for the Constitution Party, "I intend to be the candidate for the Constitution Party come next June when they have their convention." When the host asked for closing thoughts, Mr. Peroutka offered these words, "America needs to return to an American understanding of law and government. That is to say, the purpose of government is to protect and secure God-given rights, and until we return to that understanding, we're going to be in trouble, and I believe that the Constitution Party and my hopeful candidacy will stand exactly for those principles." In addition to his professional experience as an attorney and organizer of educational resource organizations, Peroutka served the Reagan administration in the Department of Health and Human Services. He now serves as chairman of the Constitution Party of Maryland and president of the Institute on the Constitution. An audio file of this interview is available from Radio Liberty at http://66.36.228.157:8080/sw_archives/rliberty/rl12-15-03a.rm. This interview was broadcast live on the Internet and affiliate radio programs.
"We really do need, Dr. Stan, an American, somebody who understands law and American form of government, to run for president; and I really believe that at this point, there is not such a person in any of the major parties ... because none of them give the slightest fig, I believe, about being loyal, and being faithful, to the Constitution of the United States, and I believe that someone needs to do that."
"Article I Section 8 lays out those programs for which Congress may tax and spend money, and education just is not listed there. Education may in fact be a good thing, but the federal government has no business being there. If you have no authority to be there, if you can't do it constitutionally, you are not going to do it right. So, that's really a theme of our campaign here, Dr. Stan: they can't do it right, because they can't do it constitutionally."
(Guffaw!) On the day after Saddam's capture?
Why don't he just announce his candidacy when the New Years ball drop from Times Square?
I bet it ticked him off when Saddam's capture kicked his announcement off the top of the news.
The only way these people will be satisfied is if one of the Founders can be somehow magically brought back to life and run for President again.
He probably thinks W had Saddam on ice, waiting to ruin his announcement. Constitution Party, right..
Some of his ideas are very admirable. I agree we'd be better off adhering more to the Constitution.But not now. We've many other things much more important. Like preventing The Hildabeaste's assault on the White House.
" He opposed the US action in Iraq on constitutional grounds: `It's not that Congress doesn't have the authority to declare war. It's just that it hasn't done so.' However, he emphasizes that he strongly supported the US troops in Iraq while opposing 'the unconstitutional procedures under which they were committed to fight.'"
This is enough to NOT get a vote from me.
I'm concerned about Bush's failure to outline an aggressive, conservative domestic policy and I do hope he does so in his upcoming SOTU address. But voting 3rd party in this critical election year is clearly not an option.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.