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."
Very true, but I do wish he hadn't thrown his veto pen away.
Thus, I am reposting the specifics because we need to support solutions as they are offered and stop perpatuating the problems through financial or ballot support.
Because you and the other professional Republicans here refuse to pay attention to other things, at least as significant if not more so, that the Republican Party has done in power that could not in any way be described as conservative:
They gave us the largest entitlement program in almost 40 years, a boondoggle estimated at $400 billion, which if previous government estimates are any guide, is low by a factor of about 100.
They enacted a piece of legislation removing our right to criticize any incumbent during the two months before an election.
They enacted a massive Federal education spending bill that blows up Federal spending on education (and take it from me, a Hillsdale guy, Federal spending brings Federal control. That's why my alma mater won't take a dime of Federal money.) And it didn't even include any school choice provisions.
BTW, Federal education spending is patently unconstitutional.
They enacted a massive farm subsidy bill that supposedly was so bloated because it included Federally-covered insurance (where is the Constitutional justification for that?) and then passed a massive insurance bill separately afterwards.
When Red China shot down one of our airplanes and held two of our men captive (briefly), President Bush apologized to the Chinese. They attack us, and we apologize to them. Jeez, that sounds like Democrat policy to me.
They enacted a bill enabling American citizens to be whisked away and held incommunicado for as long as they deem necessary without even the courtesy of a hearing.
They reneged on their promises to make even an effort to abolish the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, and the Chairman of the RNC has made it clear that such ideas are unwelcome in the Republican party.
Gridlock was better than what we have now.
Gridlock is certainly preferable to the unconstitutional spending increases (such as Medicare), expansion programs that fund religious organizations at taxpayer expense, and other violations of the First Amendment like the so-called Campaign Finance Reform Bill which inhibits political speech.
Oh you mean the gridlock of having Clark, Dean, or Kerry as Commander in Chief.
More and more are learning, that's for sure. The audio files linked to the original article on this thread were from live broadcasts, one of which was syndicated coast-to-coast.
The problem is that I would say more than 50% of the registered voters in America don't really care about government and don't really care who is running as long as they have a "R" or "D" by their name. If people would forget about party loyalty and educate themselves on what matters we would start seeing some changes in Washington. These changes will never take place as long as both the Republicans and Democrats know they have a bunch of uneducated sheep supporting them.
These are all excellent points. When there are debates to which a Democrat or Republican candidate does not accept an invitation, we need to promote these far and wide even if the left-wing media elite chose to ignore them.
I remember the debates with Howard Phillips and Harry Browne where neither Bob Dole nor Bill Clinton showed. Browne and Phillips made so much sense, and they need to be heard as their perspectives are desperately needed.
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.