Michael Peroutka Announces Presidential Campaign (December 15)

Radio Liberty and Others ^ | 1/1/2004 | Adam Valle

[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,
"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."

In response to recent expansions in federal funding of education and the Medicare program, Peroutka explained how federal involvement went beyond Constitutional limits,
"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."

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.

---

Other sources: Politcs1
American Independent Party of California News & Views
Constitution Party of Florida

[ppaul]

LOL

[jgrubbs]

Hamilton's policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison. Their disputes with him over his pro-business economic program, sympathies for Great Britain, disdain for the common man, and opposition to the principles and excesses of the French revolution contributed to the formation of the first U.S. party system. It pitted Hamilton and the Federalists against Jefferson and Madison and the Democratic-Republicans.

[CWOJackson]

"Hamilton's policies soon brought him into conflict with Jefferson and Madison."

Don't forget Aaron Burr.

[jgrubbs]

Aaron Burr's failed presidential bid was followed by a campaign to become governor of New York. When Burr requested the endorsement of the Federalists, Hamilton replied that he thought Burr to be "a man of irregular and insatiable ambition...who ought not be trusted with the reins of government."

Burr's loss in the governor's race led him to challenge Hamilton to a duel. On July 11, 1804 in Weehawken, New Jersey, Burr exacted his revenge on his nemesis with a single shot. Alexander Hamilton died from the wound on July 12, 1804 in New York City.

[CWOJackson]

Great...the wife just asked if I wanted to go out for lunch and of course I replied, "How about Sushi."

Later.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

No he won't win by a landslide. Bush and his guru Karl Rove is underestimating the anger grass-roots conservatives are feeling since being betrayed on domestic and immigration issues. It won't be a rerun of the 2000 election but it won't be a 1984 Reagan-sized victory either.

Vote for a losing canidate. That'll teach Bush that he doesn't have the arrogant nutcases to kick around.

[Dane]

Reminds me of the latest news from Seattle: A local restaurant has been offering "Naked Sushi" where patrons eat sushi off of a nude woman. Not to be outdone, local homosexuals have scheduled a "naked donut-eating contest" at the restaurant

Looks like seattle is trying to give san francisco a run for it's money.

[GetUsOutOfTheUnitedNations]

Actually you should be paying more attention to 2004 and less to 2008.

Actually, you should be looking at the person who most likely will govern by the Constitution. This is not Bush or the 9 gnomes. I will be looking at the third party candidates or writing in someone.

Call me a spoiler, but I am voting for the person that I see as the best person to lead our country out of the Repub/Dem socialist agenda that is on the table.

[jgrubbs]

Third parties in the U.S., largely moribund since the heyday of George Wallace, have steadily picked up steam since Perot's first run for president in 1992.

Four million voters rebuffed the Democrats and Republicans in 2000, double the number of third-party voters just four years before, according to the nation's leading authority on the subject, Ballot Access News publisher Richard Winger. (I wonder what the number will be in 2004 and 2008)

And with four of every 10 young voters now avoiding the major parties and registering as independents, third-party voting is highly likely to continue its ascent.

So far, most of the third-party energy has come from the center right (Perot's Reformers) and from the left (the Green Party, most notably). When Pat Buchanan's hostile takeover blew the Reform Party to bits, the most promising far-right alternative vanished.

The latest project of the "Buchanan Brigade," the America First Party, made a promising start in 2002 with an anti-immigration, anti-tax, religious-right message virtually identical to the Constitution Party's. But the America Firsters broke apart earlier this year, when a squabble erupted over a scheduled speech at the party's national convention by James "Bo" Gritz, former Green Beret and self-appointed guru of the antigovernment militia movement.

Though the party is working to patch up the differences — and keep Gritz and his comrades at arm's length — its national convention was canceled, and its plans to field a presidential candidate next year were reportedly scrapped.

As a result, the Constitution Party looks like the only viable option in 2004 for far-right purists who find themselves just as disgusted with President Bush as their counterparts on the left.

[jgrubbs]

Many in the GOP forget that the Republican Party was once a "third party".

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Even though they were considered a "third party" because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

[jgrubbs]

My post #109 is copied from a liberal source, thought I'd better let you know since there is a liberal sounding tone to the writing.

[GetUsOutOfTheUnitedNations]

What they do have a chance of doing is causing a lot of conservative voters to waste their vote instead of voting for President Bush in the 2004 election, just like Nader caused Gore to lose the last time around

You have this wrong. Nader moved the "Democratic Party" more left than they have ever been. Look at the platform of the 9 gnomes compared to Gore's platform last election. They have moved farther left to pick up the green votes this time.

Third parties do help mold the "national" party agenda.

[jgrubbs]

Constitution Party of North Carolina

[nopardons]

Third/fringe parties have come and gone, in this nation's history. They had far higher membership, in the past, and in recent historical times, their numbers are far smaller , percentage wise, to the population at large, than previously.

The lefties' numbers far exceed the fringer from the right, at present. Younger people don't vote in great numbers. The CP has far less members than the Libertarians.And, when all is said and done,fringers, on the right, have far LESS chance in getting their positions into the mainstream,than not.

To want to act as SPOILERS , especially now, after having seen, first hand, what happened in '92, is not only suicidally stupid, but childish, perverse,and contempt able. Should you and your ilk manage to do that ( GOD forbid!), you will have put all of our lives in mortal danger.

A glass 1/2 full, is far better than NO glass at all! Get outta that manger, dog, and let the cows back in.I don't care if you all bleed to death, after you cut off your collective noses...I just don't want to bleed because of you, as we all did through 8 long years of Clinton.

[nopardons]

Thanks !

FR's PURISTS/UNAPPEASEABLES di NOT really give a damn about this country. The ONLY thing they really cared about, is how PURE they are.For all of thier posturings,not a one of them, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM ,would really be " happy ", if they actually did get exactly what they post about.

[TBP]

I'm sure President Bush is shaking in his boots, after all he may lose a half-dozen votes to malcontents calling themselves "conservatives" who generate pent-up anger and frustration because Bush isn't conservative enough.,/i>

So you think that a President who gave us the largest entitlement program in almost 40 years, imposed steel tarrifs, sponsored and signed a massive farm-subsidy bill, apologized to Red China after they shot down our airplane, signed a clearly unconstitutional campaign finance "reform" bill that violates the freedom of speech, vastly increased the Federal role in education (for which there is NO Constitutional provision), attacked conservative Republicans for "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor" for trying to change the Earned Income Tax Credit from an annual to a monthly payment, who has increased Federal spending to an all-time high and given us record deficits, and who has done so many other things that liberals like is "conservative enough"?

I certainly don't.

[TBP]

No conservative President can dismantle all the socialist programs and federal departments with a snap of his/her fingers

No, but he can propose measures to begin the process. Instead, the Bush Administration has proposed measures that increased the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government. That is NOT conservative in any way. I expect a conservative administration to try to begin moving the ball in our direction. This one hasn't. I'm not demanding 100 percent of my principles being achieved overnoight, but I do expect a start. Other than the tax cuts, what has this administration done that can be considered conservative?

[TBP]

Open ended war that could go for the next 50 years as administration after administration declares new 'terrorist groups' if the neocons have their way.

Not to mention the unlimited power to declare someone an "enemy combatant" and make that person disappear without so much as the courtesy of a hearing.

That is what totalitarian police states do, not republics.

[TBP]

There is no way on God's green Earth the Constitution Party has a chance.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

When conservatives say this, they make it so. If every conservative whose positions were closer to those of the Constitution Party than those of the Republican Party (most of us, I suspect) voted Constitution, the party might have a chance. But they make sure that no truly conservative party can have a chance by deciding that they must vote Republican because it doens't have a chance. it's circular reasoning.

I thought we conservatives were smarter than that. Apparently, many of us are about as stupid as the liberals think we are.

[TBP]

Why don't you guys field some candidates for Congressional races

In fact, I have long urged the Constitution Party to do just this -- most successful parties are built from the bottom up, not the top down. However, maintaining as much of a full line as possible is also important. It inclines voters to take you a bit more seriously. So having a name at the top of the ticket helps strengthen the ticket up and down.