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

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

[Cornelius Jay McGuyver]

So I guess Michael Peroutka was seeking the endorsement of Al Jazeera. Perfect.

The shoe fits.

Wish you peace, love, good government, responsible budgeting and tax policy, and free speech.

CJM

[Marathoner]

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.

Excellent point, and also the reason I've heard Neal Boortz, who typically votes Libertarian, state that he will vote for Bush this time.

[Eastbound]

"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."

With all due respect, your timing on this is terrible. If you are speaking on behalf of the Constitution Party's philosophy at this stage of the fight, it has the aroma that once wafted across the jungles of Vietnam from the tainted lips and stinking armpits of Jane Fonda, et al.

Yes, the timing is suspect -- and to associate the sacrifice of over 500 of our fighting men and women with the word, 'squander' is beyond the pale.

Please correct me if I am mis-understanding you.

[lakey]

Will read later.

[WhiteGuy]

It seems that the biggest problem most folks here have with the CP Presidential Candidate is that he doesn't hold the popular view as it applies to the Constitutional definition of "the declaration of war".

The better question(s) would be directed toward our current elected officials and how they feel their legislation squares with the concept of "limited government".

I wonder if the CP will be included in the presidential candidates debate?

[Ahban]

In answer to your first question, here is how NOT to 'declare war' on another country. It's the actual text of the resolution on "use of force".....

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

---

You claim my point is ludicrous, but it is not my point that is ludicrous, but rather that vacilliating, loop-hole filled bunch of tripe that President Bush and Congress worked out.

As to your second point, a declaration of war is an authorization to use force, but not every authorization to use force is a declaration of war- as the convoluted text above shows. A declaration of war is decisive and clear. President Bush acted decisively, but he was not acting on a decisive authorization.

Your third point, who can say? It would depend on what was in the best interests of that dictator. The key is not what HE would say, but how something short of the Constitutional declaration of war can effect US, and divide us. It gives the other party wiggle room when things don't work out. They can say, "That is not what I authorized. I authorized him to get the weapons of mass destruction".

[Ahban]

Look at post #46. That resoultion is a textbook example of weasel wording. What does it mean to "defend the United States against the threat posed by Iraq"? Does it mean use the military to secure our borders? Seal them inside theirs? Enforce the sanctions with a naval blockade? What happens when it is discovered that Iraq posed no real threat, does that mean it is no longer OK to use force?

The Constitution DOES have constitutional language to declare war : It says "Congress shall have the power to DECLARE WAR". What is so hard about that? There should be a resoulution saying "The government of the United States hereby declares war on Iraq". Period. No escape clauses, no uncertainty, no moving goal posts, no hint of limits or conditions.

A declaration of war, if done constitutionally, should contain the words "declare" and "war", just as is used in the constitution. This resolution has neither, and President Bush should not have settled for it. Words mean things.

[Ahban]

I do not think you are misunderstanding me. And I care about the Truth, not whether it is a convienient time to face the Truth. I have found Truth often has a way of being inconvienient when one is on the wrong path.

There is a massive difference between my position and that of Ms. Fonda. We effected regime change in Iraq. The war is over, except for occupation matters. You can be sure I did not noise my concerns when the shooting started, I waved the flag like everyone else despite nagging doubts.

Now this President seems to be keeping us in an ongoing low-intensity conflict. If I am unpatriotic to question the administration "during a time of war" then I guess none of us will ever be able to question them again. They will just keep us at war all the time.

Much good has come from the war for the people of Iraq, if they have the strength of character to treat each other justly. In that sense the blood and treasure was not squanderd, but in terms of using blood and treasure judiciously for the benefit of our national interests I think we could have done better to keep our powder dry. We don't have $200 billion and 500 lives for every bad guy on earth, we have to save them for bad guys who are really hurting us.

[Texasforever]

A declaration of war, if done constitutionally, should contain the words "declare" and "war", just as is used

You have absolutly NO basis for that claim.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Splitting hairs over the "Constitutionality of the War is typically ridiculous!

In reading you other posts where you were only fixated on your hate for the U.N., I have to say, when you help get Kerry elected by proxy, you will have all the U.N. you can to complain about.

On that day, you will be on your hands and knees begging God to reverse time so you can have "W" back in office.

[FreeReign]

[AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES]: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...

The definition of war, is the use of armed forced between nations.

When congress authorizes the use of armed forces to defend against Iraq, it is authorizing war.

Words have meaning. Look it up.

[FreeReign]

A declaration of war, if done constitutionally, should contain the words "declare" and "war", just as is used in the constitution.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

[Texasforever]

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

We have had 234 major armed conflicts in our history, we have had a total of 5 formal declarations of war. History does not come close to supporting the guy's point.

[Eastbound]

Thank you for your reply. Here's the Wikipedia link on the history of the U.S. Declarations of War that might serve the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_in_the_United_States

[Choose Ye This Day]

14% of FReepers would work to hand the Presidency over to Kerry and Clinton

And yet only 6% of the general public are saying they support Nader.

[Eastbound]

"They will just keep us at war all the time."

It's the terrorists who will keep us at war all the time. The world changed on 9/11 and it will never be the same. Place the blame where it belongs -- not on Bush, who thankfully, didn't decide to keep his powder dry.

Extra-ordinary wars demand extra-ordinary solutions.

[general_re]

...the steely character of his eye contact with the interviewer suggests the fire that burns within...

Michael Peroutka looked thoughtful as he stood up from his chair and made a purposeful beeline for the office coffee-maker. Pouring pure black octane into his cup, and that of his office interrogator, one sensed the interlude in conversation was a purposeful silence...

Coming this fall from Magnet Paperbacks^TM...

Slowly, I raised my head to look into his dark eyes, letting their smoldering flame heat me from the inside out. I knew my resistance to his magnetism was fading fast. Flustered, I sputtered out...

"What are the cohesive philosophical principles in your understanding of the American Constitution, and how do they differ from the policy makers you believe have betrayed the American people?"

He gazed at me for a long time, too long, his eyes burning into me, until I suddenly realized I was blushing furiously. Flushed, I dropped my eyes away from his chiseled visage once again, feeling the sweat beginning to bead in the small of my back.

Gently, he smiled. "America needs a President who actually applies the Constitution and the underlying principles of the Founders to daily governance. First and foremost, any fair understanding of the Constitution presupposes the acknowledgment of the existence of a Creator God. It must be foundationally emphasized that all fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals stem from God and not the State. Government exists to secure these God-given rights for each person."

I was dizzy. My head was swimming, as I found myself lost in the haze of his words, and that penetrating gaze. Stop, damn you! I wanted to shout out, but through the fog and the heat, I heard only a low moan escape my lips. I knew only two things: this man was going to be President.

And I wanted him.

[Texasforever]

LMAO

[general_re]

Can you tell I thought the prose was a bit over the top? ;)

[Texasforever]

Naw ya think? lol How have ya been? YOu never call you never write what's the deal?