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

[nopardons]

UNAPPEASEABLES and PURISTS are ONLY truly " happy ", when the Dems are running EVERYTHING. :-(

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Ahem - Jim Robinson himself, in a vanity post written in 1999, spoke about the dangers of a Bush presidency.

I'd post it...but then it'll probably be deleted and I may get banned.

[politicalwit]

How can you tell the democrats from the republicans? Have you been channeling?

[nopardons]

I not only know what the Constitution, the BoR, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers say, I understand it all too. Not only THAT, but I also know that the fringers don't inderstand a thing about the reality of politics.

Go build a time machine and go back to a time, which ONLY exists in your fetid mind.

[LdSentinal]

Uh-huh. Don't forget. Ronald Reagan sold out his conservative principles when he chose George H. Bush for the vice-presidency.

[billbears]

Go build a time machine and go back to a time, which ONLY exists in your fetid mind.

Thank you, you answered my question. You just don't care. BTW, thanks for the insult

[nopardons]

Oh yes he did! Guess you don't know factual histolry nearly as well as you imagine yolu do. LOL

[Chris Tucker]

Look, you know and I know that the only political party out there that can defeat the Dems is the Republicans. There is no way on God's green Earth the Constitution Party has a chance.

Why don't you guys field some candidates for Congressional races instead of focusing on the Presidency, who is just a figurehead for the Executive Branch anyway? In fact that's what the Constitution Party should do - you'll achieve more of your goals in Congress than you would if you elect a President.

[nopardons]

I usually am right. LOL

[CWOJackson]

It's official. As poster number 48 you just exceeded the total national attendion that this nomination has received.

[politicalwit]

"I usually am right. LOL"

Only in your mind.

[nopardons]

I CARE ; you don't !

I live in reality; you don't!

Politics is the realm of the possible!

Yearning for an immediate roll back, of at least 80+ years of liberal incrimentalism, is childish and delusional.

Supporting and voting for a fringe of the fringe party,when so much hangs on the outcome of this election, is suicidal!

[nopardons]

No, pet, in life and on every thread I post to. That you are incapable of seeing that,is YOUR problem. ;^)

[onyx]

Ahem - Jim Robinson himself, in a vanity post written in 1999, spoke about the dangers of a Bush presidency.

---

Get up-to-date. That was then, this is NOW.

---

Posted by Jim Robinson to John R. (Bob) Locke
On RLC Liberty Caucus 12/12/2003 12:58:47 AM PST #62 of 180

No, it's not ok. And I think most of the Republicans are fuming over this. It ain't over yet. Thank God that Gore did not get in. We'd still be negotiating with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Huesein if he did (if we hadn't already surrendered that is).

Course of action is to do all I possibly can to re-elect Bush and to build on the Republican majority. I have faith that a more conservative court will overturn this b/s first chance they get.

In the meantime, I suggest the best course of action is to start grooming a more conservative candidate for 2008.

AND:

Posted by Jim Robinson to John R. (Bob) Locke
On RLC Liberty Caucus 12/12/2003 12:48:44 AM PST #57 of 180

Of course not. I doubt they'll burn it down.

I have no idea how far I'm willing to go, but I do know that I'm willing to go for Bush and the Republicans next year. Like I said before, I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to turnover the courts. The very worst thing we could do is to turn it back to the Democrcats.

AND:

Posted by Jim Robinson to John R. (Bob) Locke
On RLC Liberty Caucus 12/11/2003 10:52:19 PM PST #35 of 180

I believe that during the campaign, Bush ill-advisedly promised to sign a campaign finance reform bill if delivered to his desk. Probably some kind of compromise with McCain. And who knows? Without that compromise, we may very well have had President Gore.

Again, it doesn't excuse a bad bill, but I don't think the ^conservative Republicans actually had majority control when this passed. In fact, I believe the Democrats had majority control of the senate at the time.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=34

In the House it passed 240 yea to 189 nay with 6 not voting (5 of those Republican). Almost all of the Democrats voted for it and very few Republicans. The vast majority of the Republicans (178) voted no, while only 11 Democrats voted against it. Only 41 Republicans voted for the bill, but a whopping 198 Democrats voted yes.

It passed the Senate 59 to 41. All but two of the Senate Democrats plus McCain and 11 rinos voted for the bill. Again, the vast majority of the Republican senators voted against it.

In sumamry, the vast majority of the Democrats along with the help of a relatively small minority of Rinos passed the bill.

Yes, President Bush should've vetoed it, and that was a major mistake as far as I'm concerned, but there is no mistaking the fact that this was a basically a DEMOCRAT passed bill.

The conclusion is not that we should abandon the Republicans, the most of whom did not support this fiasco, but we should boot the jackass Democrats, the majority of whom did.

And there's no way we should boot Bush. That'd only make matters much worse. We lose the presidency, we lose the majority and we'll lose big time to a liberal activist judiciary for the next 40 years. Do not make the mistake of turning the majority power back over to the Democrats. Enough already! Vote the rat bastards out!


AND: THERE'S MORE, a WHOLE LOT MORE. Have at it!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/site/user-posts?id=1;more=15962815

[onyx]

Fly paper deluxe tonight. :)

[nopardons]

I was here then,I read that and remember it ( no need to postg it, even IF you could find it ), but times have changed and Jim has now, repeatedly said that voting for anyone other than a GOP candidate is helping the Dems.He also says that FIRST, we have to get rid of as many Dems, as we can, by voting them out. You can't get rid of Dems, by voting for fringers.

[nopardons]

Oh, it's far easier to tell the difference, between Dems and GOPers, than you blinkered fringers are willing to admit and channeling hasn't a thing to do with it. :-p

[The_Eaglet]

Why don't you guys field some candidates for Congressional races instead of focusing on the Presidency,

In many states, the Constitution Party is doing that, too. Some candidates are listed on the national website, and I've seen articles about other candidates for Congress and local races listed elsewhere.

[politicalwit]

It's unfortunate that you are so blinded by party loyalty. Perhaps some day you will wake up and realize where the republican party is taking you. In the mean time I guess you can bask in your pseudo victories and keep you head buried deep within the sands as the republican and democrat parties become one.