CHRISTIAN HERITAGE ASSOCIATION

HomeSuggested ActivitiesChaplain's SermonsLeadership TeamConstitution ReviewUpholding God's LawUpcoming EventsContact UsPrinciples & Policies

Articles posted here are by permission of the author, Michael Anthony Perouka, Co-founder of Institute on the Constitution, www.TheAmericanView. Please see their web site for information about their online classes and study kits, as well as archived articles.

______________________________________

  

Romney Is Not an Alternative to Obama

______________________________________

  

Most Americans who care about their country know that there is something very wrong with its civil government.

 

Many would agree that we are losing the rule of law.

No matter whether we elect Democrats or Republicans, the steady march away from lawful government continues. 

In recent commentaries, I have pointed out that the voting record of Romney and Ryan, and their statements, indicate that they will, if elected, continue this march toward lawlessness. Both have more than demonstrated their “welfare state” credentials, and this week, despite his touted pro-life record, Mr. Ryan has confirmed that he is “comfortable” with Mr. Romney’s position that babies can be murdered if the health of the mother is involved.

Some have asked me if I am saying you should vote for Obama. My answer is: “Of course not.”

 What I am saying is this:

1.There are moral and legal qualifications that anyone who seeks office must possess.

2.Neither Mr. Obama NOR Mr. Romney meets these qualifications.

In the American view, the qualifications for office boil down to this:

1.A candidate must acknowledge the God of the Bible as the Source of Law, and God’s Word as the ultimate authority over all earthly government.

2.A candidate must demonstrate a knowledge of the limits that the Constitution places on government, as well as a commitment to abide by those limits.

Despite their sometimes compelling rhetoric, the record indicates that neither of these men meets the qualifications; therefore, neither of these men is worthy of your vote, nor are they worthy of the office they seek.

I realize this reality is hard to accept—but until we do accept reality, and act in accord with reality, we will continue to make ourselves and liberty the losers.

______________________________________

  

Doctrines of Nullification and Interposition Are Not Outdated

______________________________________

  

The next statement may strike you as unusual, and perhaps you may not want to take my word for it; so, please check it out for yourself:

 

The Federal government in Washington, DC has no authority to feed, clothe, or shelter anyone.

 

Yes . . . That is what I said. There is no legal authority for the Congress or the President or the Courts to provide welfare to anyone.

 

Now, I know that there is something called the “General Welfare Clause” but, as written by our founders, this only meant that the

 powers and authorities that were delegated to the central (Federal) government could only be used for general purposes and not for the specific welfare of any specific people or groups of people.

 

Another way to say this is that the “General Welfare Clause” is a clause of limitation on the powers that are delegated to the federal government in Article One, Section Eight—not a clause of expansion, granting unlimited power to Congress to enact anything they determined to be generally desirable.  As James Madison explained in Federalist Paper No. 41, if the General Welfare Clause granted plenary power, there would be no purpose for the limited delegations of power.

 

Understanding this truth allows us to see that fully 90 percent and more of the programs and actions in Washington are unconstitutional—that is to say, illegal—that is to say, criminal.

 

This is why many Americans are beginning to remember and recover the ideas of nullification and interposition, which our founders and our grandparents knew were the people’s and the States’ proper legal defense against lawless, tyrannical central government.

 

It’s also why the right of Secession—originally threatened by the Northern State of Massachusetts, in the year 1803 in protest of the Louisiana Purchase—is being discussed again in the North, and the South, and the East, and the West.

  

 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Doctrines of

 Nullification and Interposition

 Are Not Outdated

  

  

  

The next statement may strike you as unusual, and perhaps you may not want to take my word for it; so, please check it out for yourself:

  

The Federal government in Washington, DC has no authority to feed, clothe, or shelter anyone.

  

 Yes . . . That is what I said. There is no legal authority for the Congress or the President or the Courts to provide welfare to anyone.

  

 Now, I know that there is something called the "General Welfare Clause" but, as written by our founders, this only meant that the powers and authorities that were delegated to the central (Federal) government could only be used for general purposes and not for the specific welfare of any specific people or groups of people.

  

 Another way to say this is that the "General Welfare Clause" is a clause of limitation on the powers that are delegated to the federal government in Article One, Section Eight—not a clause of expansion, granting unlimited power to Congress to enact anything they determined to be generally desirable.  As James Madison explained in Federalist Paper No. 41, if the General Welfare Clause granted plenary power, there would be no purpose for the limited delegations of power.

  

 Understanding this truth allows us to see that fully 90 percent and more of the programs and actions in Washington are unconstitutional—that is to say, illegal—that is to say, criminal.

  

 This is why many Americans are beginning to remember and recover the ideas of nullification and interposition, which our founders and our grandparents knew were the people's and the States' proper legal defense against lawless, tyrannical central government.

  

 It's also why the right of Secession—originally threatened by the Northern State of Massachusetts, in the year 1803 in protest of the Louisiana Purchase—is being discussed again in the North, and the South, and the East, and the West.

  

  

 

    

 

      Michael Anthony Peroutka

  

 

  

Click Here for the Article.

  

 

INSTITUTE ON THE CONSTITUTION

 

  

                 

  

TheAmericanView.com 

  

         

 

  
  
© 2012 Christian Heritage Association