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."
As for December 15, Peroutka noted on the radio program that this was the anniversary date for the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and that is something worth celebrating.
Judging from the responses on this thread, most FReepers have clearly forgotten the main reason why FR was established.
For the "unappeasables" who love to lose elections.
Michael Peroutka »» anagram »» A chum like a Perot
No conservative President can dismantle all the socialist programs and federal departments with a snap of his/her fingers - get real.
Oh yes. $400 billion for a boondoggle of a healthcare plan. 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. Non-defense spending as not seen at the levels since LBJ. I do love how the 'grown-ups' ridicule the issues when someone of substance comes onto the field. Much better to keep the childish king-of-the-hill R vs. D battle up eh? Has it ever occurred to you that neither party is very conservative? And what do children do when faced with a decision between two items? They pick the lesser of the two knowing full welll neither suits their needs.
I agree, it's time for serious people. People that are concerned with following what the Constitution says instead of using it as some sort of catchphrase, depending rather on stirring up patriotic 'feelings' instead of answering serious questions, all the while shredding the Constitution of these United States with massive expenditures and 'patriot' acts meant to 'protect' us while destroying freedom. This is what has been going on in Washington by both parties.
There's not really an ounce worth of difference between what they propose and what we propose, or what we end up voting for. We act like we are doing this big, mean, ugly fight. We try to draw these distinctive lines, but the lines are really blurred. Ninety-five percent of it is theater. When you look in the eyes of the appropriators, I don't see a lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. When it comes to pork barrel spending, I don't see a big difference here on Capitol Hill. -- U.S. Representative Matt Salmon (R-AZ) in the Nov. 20, 2000 issue of The New American.
Sad really, when even a Republican admits it. But keep it up, I could care less. Conservatism will come back around in this nation of states. It has to. That's the only thing that keeps me hoping every time I turn on the TV to see another spending bill gleefully passed. But I guess it's okay since 'we' are in charge.
With a premise like this, it would seem that there would be more positive input about a candidate that actually intends to govern according to his oath of office, and that's not something we have seen from either Bush, either Clinton, Gephardt, or Dean.
Now, since Thomas Jefferson, himself, worried that the Lousiana Purchase might be unConstitutional ( thank GOD saner heads prevailed ! ),today's fringers, who assume that they and they alone, fully undertsand the Constitution, sholuld be pitied and helped.
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.
No conservative President can dismantle all the socialist programs and federal departments with a snap of his/her fingers - get real.
You get real. Quit engaging in self-fulfilling prophecies. Bush had a golden opportunity after 9/11 to cut gov't size and spending. He has done neither - non-defense spending is through the roof and Bush has yet to veto a single bill.
Lawyer, educator and gubermint employee (in a department he probably now want's to eliminate of course).
Seems over qualified.
Not channeling, rather reading
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to REMAIN IN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States
Can you say much, if any, of that about this nation of states today? Or do you even care?
Well put. Out-spending and expanding beyond LBJ's not-so-"Great Society" is anything but conservative.
Jefferson never fretted over the Louisiana Purchase, since the Constitution never mentions that the nation may or may not acquire land.
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.