U.S Constitution Party An Interview With the Presidential Candidate Michael Peroutka

aljazeerah.info ^ | March 4, 2004 | Mark Dankof

[sauropod]

Congress gave the President authorization to go to war. It was a Declaration of War (Capital D Capital W) in all but name.

To maintain it was something else is dishonest.

[sauropod]

My political beliefs come closest to the CP also. Its sad this year that Peroutka is taking what is (in my view) an idiotic position on the war in Iraq.

[xrp]

I can agree with that.

[xrp]

I can agree with that.

[dighton]

It doesn't get much weirder.

Michael Peroutka, interviewed in Al-Jazeerah, by one Mark Dankof.

[Old Sarge]

We’re in the middle of a Constitutionally undeclared, preemptive war in Iraq with no viable occupation policy and no end in sight

I stopped reading at this point.

Kindly don't waste my time.

[Eastbound]

Agree. He's got a blind side and he will never see the numbers waiting just beyond the party's threshhold who won't step over. Being a constitutionalist does not necessarily equate with being a patriot or having the courage or presence of mind to retaliate against terrorism in the most effective and most immediate way -- the way a Sovereign nation should when attacked without provocation.

I give Bush credit for having great discipline. I would have bombed every terrorist and terrorist-protecting country back to the stone age on the evening of 9/11.

[section9]

No, they don't. They're fringies. They don't deserve my wasted time. But they might hand a state or two to John Kerry because of their asshattery.

In the middle of a freaking war for the survival of our civilization, these clowns want to hand the election to John Kerry. Will a vote for Michael Peroutka protect our right to keep and bear arms? Not if it puts Kerry in the White House.

I'm sorry. This election is too damned important to waste time on the likes of Peroutka and his gaggle of fringies. Voting for Michael Peroutka this year is like writing in Mr. Magoo.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Ahban]

Hold on fellas. In retrospect I fail to see what is so idiotic about Peroutka's position. It makes a lot of sense to me to insist that Congress pass a formal declaration of war rather than an "authorization to use force" to enforce UN resolutions.

When you make Congress go on record with a formal declaration of war, for our interests and not the UNs, then it is harder for them to do just what Kerry is doing now- weaseling out of his vote. He would probably try anyway, but it would not be as crediable in the eyes of the public. Failure to get a formal, outright declaration of war simply invites disunity later on when problems start to mount.

It also undermines your position because it makes it look like a morph between a police action for the UN and a war- which is a tough cell when the UN weenies then say you DON'T act for them.

You are absolultey right about the clash of civilizations and the fact that after 9/11 we are at war. But I am afraid we spent $200 billion dollars and 500 American lives on the wrong target.

There was no doubt Afganistan was tied up with the terrorists, and I, and Peroutka apparently, were all for taking out the Taliban. I don't think Saddam was a threat to America anymore. I don't think he was tied into AQ in any significant way, not like the Taliban at least. He was a secular Arab that Bin Laden would have overthrown if he could have. Now we have done it for him and amongst those crazies democracy may mean that terrorists get elected to parliment. Saddam was a cruel tyrant, but he kept the fundamentalists in line. Now we have to.

We are the #1 military power on Earth, but we do not have so much power that we can afford to squander that power taking out the wrong targets.

[aculeus]

It doesn't get much weirder.

It will, it will.

[Texasforever]

Failure to get a formal, outright declaration of war simply invites disunity later on when problems start to mount.

How many times doe this nonsense have to be shot down to kill it. There is NO constitutional language for a "formal declaration of War" there is only the requirement that Congress give the green light to activate the president's CIC powers. That was done by the joint resolution. Every thing else is a semantic argument used to bolster a weak case.

[RaceBannon]

FDR asked that Congress declare that a state orf war exists between Japan and the US, that sounds pretty clear.

We need to have Congress use the same language.

[duk]

Could you provide a link to the exact resolution so we can all read it?

Thanks
duk

[Texasforever]

We need to have Congress use the same language.

Do you remember what FDR did with that declaration? He assumed dictatorial powers that were not even war related. The joint resolution gave the CIC all powers required to prosecute the war without giving the executive the power to nationalize industry or unilateral martial law or suspension of Habeas Corpus. The joint resolution was modeled on the one issued during the Barbary Pirates war and fits the WOT much better than a declaration of war on a specific country.

[Texasforever]

Just google joint resolution Iraq.

[Eastbound]

"There is NO constitutional language for a "formal declaration of War" there is only the requirement that Congress give the green light to activate the president's CIC powers."

Sounds right to me. What could be a more clear assent for war by Congress than to fund it? To actually utter the words and sign a declaration to be sent to the embassy of a nation to be invaded? I think not. In the case of Iraq, the declaration of war was printed on the first bomb which burrowed deep into what was believed to be Saddam's bunker.

[Texasforever]

I am really weary of the argument that there was no declaration of war. In fact the constitution confers the POWER to declare war on Congress but no where does it say that the Congress is REQUIRED to EXERCISE that power, HOW it is to be exercised or the manner in which it is to be exercised. The entire argument is silly and only used by those that see the war itself as bad. It is the classic strawman argument.

[DugwayDuke]

"It makes a lot of sense to me to insist that Congress pass a formal declaration of war rather than an "authorization to use force" to enforce UN resolutions."

Three simple questions to show just how ludicrous your point is.

First, please quote that portion of the Constitution that defines the content and format of a "Declaration of War". Congress has plenary power to declare war. They can use any language or format they wish.

Second, just exactly what is a declaration of war other than an authorization to use force?

Third, suppose you were the chief of a country that was the object of an authorization to use force, would you claim that a state of war did not exist?

[Cultural Jihad]

I hardly surprises me that 14% of FReepers would work to hand the Presidency over to Kerry and Clinton. Needless to say, those are the 'true uber-conservatives.'