Please Vote in New Poll (Kerry currently ahead)
- The letter below is what convinced me to vote for Peroutka in
November. Please vote in the new poll at
Kerry is currently ahead in the poll.
June 1, 2004
Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,
I was recently quoted in an article on WorldNetDaily.com as
suggesting that abortion could be ended on the first day in office by
a President who was committed to ending this national disgrace. I
pointed out that what is lacking in Washington is not the tools to
end abortion but the commitment of a President to do so.
As part of my answer, I said that I would issue an executive order
declaring the personhood of the unborn, from the moment of
conception, and that I would appoint U.S. Attorneys who would enforce
the Constitutional provision that no person be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law.
In response to this, I received an excellent question from a man
named Bryan, asking, in light of the Constitution Party's opposition
to the use of Executive Orders to make law or otherwise usurp
Constitutional authority, "How does Mr. Peroutka purpose to do
this? ... I'd really hate for us to start sounding hypocritical this
early in the game let alone at all."
I would like to address this question and to clarify my position.
While I am certainly not in favor of the misuse of executive orders
as a backdoor way to "make" law, I do believe that lawful policy
directives from the Chief Executive to Executive Branch personnel
(those under his lawful authority), which do not make new law nor
create any new responsibilities nor place any new penalties or
restrictions on citizens, can be the proper subject of an executive
order. For example, an order to lower the flag to half mast at all
executive branch buildings to honor a fallen hero would be the proper
use of an executive order. It applies only to the executive branch
and does not place any obligation on the people nor usurp the power
of any other branch.
Similarly, an executive order declaring the personhood of the unborn
for the purpose of the Executive Branch, would not violate the
appropriate purpose of such orders and would clarify that the holding
in Roe v. Wade will not be enforced upon any state by the Executive
(law enforcement) Branch. Such a declaration does not make new law
but simply declares the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe to be
just what it is, a judicial ruling that binds only Roe and Wade and
no one else, including federal or state law enforcement.
In addition, federal prosecutors would be instructed, within the
scope of their limited Constitutional authority, to investigate and
prosecute those who have or provide abortions.
Moreover, while no action of any President or any branch of
government can actually stop a mother from murdering her child, I
believe a significant chilling effect upon the murder of innocents
can be achieved by a President who is determined and committed to do
everything in his constitutional power to punish (or remove the
barriers upon the states to punish) those who kill or those who aid
or abet the killing of America's precious children.
My point was, and is, that I am committed to stopping all abortion in
America and would act accordingly, including cutting off
unconstitutional funding for Planned Parenthood and other
organizations which promote murder, the cessation of stem-cell
research and the distribution of RU-486.
Lastly, I have pledged to veto all funding for abortion, here or
For God, Family and the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka