Here are their stances on issues....

 

2nd Ammendment

Dear Friends of our Constitutional Republic

 

I believe that the Second Amendment means what it says. If elected President, I will do everything within my power to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

...

 

I support the:

 

-Repeal of the unconstitutional semi-automatic ban -- a ban which has compromised our security, while having no impact on crime;

 

-Repeal of the unconstitutional Instantcheck system,requiring law-abiding Americans to get the government's permission to exercise their constitutional rights (and which does nothing to lower crime);

 

-Repeal of laws which deny constitutional rights to persons who have committed no crime -- or who have committed a "crime" as minor as a parent spanking a child for misbehavior;

 

-Repeal of the "safety-free" zones surrounding America's public schools, where only criminals are allowed to have guns;

 

-Repeal of the draconian gun bans implemented by the District of Columbia, over which Congress is given exclusive legislative authority under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution;

 

-Repeal of the ban on full automatics -- ownership of which requires some of the most draconian screening procedures on the federal books;

 

-Repeal of legislation which somehow treats ammunition as the hazard, rather than the criminal himself -- and which has repeatedly been used as a stepping stone in efforts to ban all ammunition;

 

-Repeal of regulations which restrict importation of constitutionally protected firearms -- and which treat sportsmen like criminals by restricting the use of "federal" (i.e., taxpayer-owned) lands; and

 

-Repeal of statutes and regulations which unconstitutionally forbid Second Amendment groups from telling voters about the anti-gun records of officeholders

My thoughts: :thumbup

 

Abortion

I am Michael A. Peroutka and I am running for President on the Constitution Party ticket. I am 100% pro-life, all nine months, no exceptions.

 

...

 

It is, by the way, within the power of the President to end abortion tomorrow, as I would do my first day in office. Don't let alleged "pro-life" Presidents tell you differently. The President has an obligation under Article IV, ?4 to ensure to each member State that it will be republican in form of government. Any action that is not republican in form will be utterly resisted to the grave if necessary under a Peroutka Presidency. Abortion was made "legal" (more correctly, the prosecution of abortion was made illegal) in these United States by judicial fiat, which is anti-republican in form and in violation of the Separation of Powers and Article I, ?1 of the Constitution vesting all legislative power of the Federal Government in the Congress. In an American form of government, "all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison. Most certainly, anti-Constitutional court decisions are not binding.

 

Thus, under my presidency, Roe v. Wade will not be enforced, and the member states of the Union could again open their criminal codes and begin the prosecution of the doctors and parents who would contract for the murder of an unborn child without fear of reprisal from the Chief Executive.

My thoughts: I'm still up in the air on 100% banning of abortions (incest situations and situations where the mother's life is in danger)...but other than that :thumbup

 

I'll give more later....probably tomorrow afternoon or evening, b/c I can't post at work...they track my keystrokes! :o

where do you draw the line on owning "arms" anyway? there's gotta be a line between a pop gun and a shoulder-fired missile launcher.

alright...continuing with the issues...Balanced Budget Amendment

 

Well, one important reason why we now have Mr. Bush?s bigger Big Govt elephant in our living room --- and this pork-barrel pachyderm is growing as I speak --- is because our President has paid no attention whatsoever to the Constitutional limitations on his Federal Government. In fact, when you look at the most recent budget he submitted to Congress, it seems, from this document, that Mr. Bush is totally unaware that he?s under any Constitutional restraints.

 

In his speech to those conservatives, (Congressman) Chris Cox suggested several ways to make the Federal Government smaller. One of these is a Constitutional amendment to control spending. Congressman Cox said he will soon introduce such an amendment.

 

But, we do not need such an amendment to the Constitution. Why not? Because if neither Congress nor the President care about our Constitution --- and they don?t --- they most certainly will not care about any new amendment to the Constitution. You can bet on that.

 

What we need is for Congress, the President, and all those in the Federal Government, to obey the Constitution!

 

Our Constitution is the spending limit!

 

If the President and Congress obeyed our Constitution it would result in the largest tax cut in history.