Constitution Party of Texas
 Return Home
 Party Info
 National Platform
 State Platform
 Latest News
 Support the Party
 Candidates for Office
 Renew Membership
 Join the Discussion
 Campaign Materials
 Local Contact
 Are you a Terrorist?
 Audio Clips
United States
The US Constitution
The Declaration of Independence
Federalist Papers
Anti-Federalist Papers
Other Founding Documents

Chuck Baldwin's Speech Delivered Before the State of Ohio Reform Party Annual Convention

Ashland, Ohio, Sat. May 8, 2004

[This is an edited version taken from the speaker's notes; it was not transcribed from the verbal delivery.]

Part One: Honor God

Thank you for allowing me to address you today. As you know, presumptive Constitution Party Presidential candidate Michael Peroutka publicly invited me last Sunday, May 2, to be his Vice Presidential running mate, and I was honored and privileged to accept his invitation. Michael's campaign theme is, "Honor God, Defend the Family, Restore the Republic." I would like to expound on these principles with you today.

From its inception, America sought to honor God. From the writing of the Mayflower Compact, written in 1620, to the countless public buildings and monuments constructed all across these United States [including the Liberty Bell on which is inscribed "Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof" which is taken from Lev. 25:10,] clear and copious evidence shouts a repeated chorus of praise to God!

It is more than a coincidence that virtually every State constitution preamble, and many State mottos [including the Ohio State Motto which says, "With God, all things are possible"] give eloquent testimony to our nation's desire to honor God.

As I'm sure most of you know, our country was founded on three great documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. What many people don't know is that the principles and pattern for each of these documents are contained in the Holy Scriptures.

For example, Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration, "[Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Jefferson also said that these rights are "self evident," and that they constitute "the Laws of Nature."

Having listened and learned from the great reformers and preachers of their day, along with reading the loquacious writings of men such as Calvin and Blackstone, Jefferson and his fellow patriots certainly understood the connection between Scriptural truth and civil obligation. He knew that the latter was predicated upon the former.

Therefore, it is no accident or happenstance that Jefferson's phrase "the law of nature," otherwise called "Natural Law," was first a Biblical teaching. One only need read Romans 2:14-16 to see and understand this "unalienable" truth.

Furthermore, the truth that God is the Creator of life is seen in Genesis 2:7. That God, not government, gives liberty is clearly expressed in Galatians 5:1. Even Jefferson's reference to "the Pursuit of Happiness" was found first in Ecclesiastes 3:13. However, not only is the Declaration of Independence predicated upon Biblical truth, so is the Bill of Rights.

For example, the First Amendment recognizes the God-given [natural] right of freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. And since governments are instituted "to secure these Rights," the Fist Amendment was written for the express purpose of protecting the rights of Christians [and others] to freely preach, speak, and assemble.

However, since 1962, our federal government has chosen to repeatedly usurp our God-given rights, especially those enumerated in the First Amendment. Without due process, meaning, without the vote of single American citizen or representative, our federal government has denied [and continues to deny] America's children the fundamental right to pray or read the Scriptures in public schools.

Furthermore, a federal judge, along with a supporting cast including the President of the United States, the Governor of Alabama, and the Attorney General of Alabama, just recently denied Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore his natural right to display a monument to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. Again, all of this was done without "the consent of the governed" [Declaration,] but by judicial fiat.

By the way, I was honored to be in attendance at the public announcement in Prattville, Alabama, when Chief Justice Moore, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Howard Phillips, Phyllis Schlafly, along with Rep. Robert Aderholt [AL,] Sen. Richard Shelby [AL,] and Sen. Sam Brownback [KS] in which it was revealed that The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 was being introduced in both chambers of Congress. In my opinion, this is the most important piece of legislation of the last fifty years. In a nutshell, it would bring the federal judiciary under the restraints and limitations of Congress in matters pertaining to the First Amendment as prescribed by Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.

I can assure this audience that a Michael Peroutka presidency would enthusiastically and emphatically support and promote The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 and would not rest in this regard until it was passed into law!

By the way, it did not help Chief Justice Moore one bit that there was a Republican in the White House, a Republican governor in Alabama, or a Republican attorney general in Alabama. The silence of both major parties to the unlawful ouster of Chief Justice Moore should make it obvious to everyone that neither the Republican nor Democratic parties has any attention of truly honoring God or following the Constitution. Again, I can assure you that Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party seek to do more than give lip service to honoring God!

It might even surprise some people to realize that the Second Amendment is Biblically-based. In Luke 11:21, the Lord Jesus said, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." He also told His disciples in Luke 22:35,36 that if they did not own a sword to sell what they had and go buy one! I don't know about you, but I'll take the Word of God over the word of Chuck Schumer any day!

As we read through the rest of the Bill of Rights, we should be struck with how each of them is taken in principle from the Scriptures. For example, the Fourth Amendment is found in Deuteronomy 24:10,11. The Eighth Amendment is seen in Deuteronomy 15:2,3. Furthermore, our Constitutional form of government, complete with three separate but equal branches, is found in Isaiah. 33:22.

I often hear people say that the U.S. Constitution is a totally secular document, that it gives no recognition to God or to the Christian faith. Such statements are egregiously in error. Apparently, these people have never read Article Seven of the U.S. Constitution which reads, "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty- seven and of the Independence of the United States of America, the Twelfth."

Did you hear that? It says, "in the year of our Lord." Yes, Friends, the writers and framers of the U.S. Constitution referred to Jesus Christ as "our Lord." They certainly were not referring to Mohammed or Confucius, that is for sure!

Beyond that, Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph, 2, exempts Sundays from legal work days. Did you get that? It was Sunday, the Christian day of worship, that was set aside from legal work days. It was not Friday, the Muslim worship day, or Saturday, the Jewish worship. It was Sunday, the Christian worship day that was given preferential consideration in the U.S. Constitution. Don't tell me that the Constitution does not recognize God or Christianity! It plainly does.

Our first president and "Father Of Our Country" George Washington said on October 3, 1789, "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His Will, to be grateful to His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor." A Michael Peroutka presidency will seek to do just that!

Honoring God not only includes reining in an out of control federal judiciary, it also involves bringing abortion-on-demand to an end! G.W. Bush talks pro-life, but since he took the oath of office, more than four million unborn babies have been legally murdered in these United States. President Bush has not saved one unborn child from the abortionist's scalpel, the Partial Birth Abortion Act notwithstanding.

"How can a president end abortion?" you ask. Simple. He can appoint only U.S. attorneys and an attorney general that will refuse to enforce Roe v Wade. That would immediately send a message to the States that if they choose to close the abortuaries within their jurisdictions, the federal government won't interfere.

If pro-abortion people within the various states want to enact abortion rights, let them do so according to our federal system of government and convince both congressional chambers in their states and their respective governors to pass and sign such proposals into law. I dare say that not even in the most liberal states of our Union could this be accomplished.

This is why radical feminists circumvented the legislative bodies of government and appealed to the federal judiciary. However, a Constitutional executive branch of government could put a stop to this tyranny almost overnight. You see, that's the difference between someone who talks pro-life and someone who really is pro-life!

The decision of a sitting president to refuse to enforce a federal court ruling is not without precedent. Thomas Jefferson did that very thing when he refused to enforce the Alien and Sedition Act. President Andrew Jackson acted in a similar manner as did President Abraham Lincoln.

The point is, there are many examples of sitting presidents who exercised their power as a co-equal branch of Constitutional government and refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision. You see, the Supreme Court is not the supreme law of the land; the Constitution is. And the Constitution is what it says not what federal judges wish it said!

Part Two: Defend The Family

It is a historical fact that those nations who normalized, legitimized, and legalized aberrant sexual behavior, such as homosexuality, met with certain doom! One can like that fact or not, but it doesn't change history one iota. Any country that seeks to make sodomy part of its mainstream culture has a death wish.

A high standard for public servants has always been essential to maintaining the trust and confidence of the citizenry. Our second President, John Adams, said, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the character and conduct of their rulers."

Before selecting military and even civilian personnel for many classified or secured jobs, our country will conduct extensive background investigations into the moral character of potential candidates. The same is true for many positions in the business world and in law enforcement. Even head coaches of high school and college sports teams are expected to maintain unblemished moral integrity.

Is America now prepared to lower the standard for the most sacred and most fundamental institution of all, holy matrimony, in order to accommodate moral deviants? Are we now willing to put the public stamp of approval upon depraved and abhorrent lifestyles? It appears that many people in both major parties are willing to do just that.

Homosexuality, by very definition, is an act of fornication. If homosexuality is granted legal, legitimate social status, we will have repudiated two thousand years of Western Civilization and will no longer be capable of maintaining normalcy for sexual mores within our society.

Furthermore, the fundamental essence of the homosexual lifestyle demands that homosexuals must recruit, because they cannot reproduce. Therefore, to normalize sodomy threatens, not only our country's moral integrity, but also its very existence!

Again, one needs to only look at history to realize the absurdity of any nation turning its back on traditional, monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the bedrock foundation of its society. Virtually every great nation and empire of antiquity that attempted to normalize and legalize sodomite behavior experienced a certain and sudden demise. There are no exceptions! Unfortunately, America's slippery slope toward Sodom and Gomorrah is already in progress and, unfortunately, it is being facilitated by both major parties in Washington, D.C.

Both John Kerry and G.W. Bush try to create the impression that they offer the American people a distinctly different vision from each other. However, the reality is, in many issues, including the one we are now discussing, there is virtually no difference. Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush oppose same-sex marriage but support "civil unions" for same-sex couples.

Yet, for all practical, legal purposes, there is no difference between marriage and civil unions. Kerry and Bush are merely playing word games with the American people. They want to appease both the homosexual lobby and mainstream, moral America. Once again, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

The only area of disagreement between Bush and Kerry on the homosexual issue is a proposed Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Bush favors such an amendment; Kerry does not.

Let me here emphatically say that the marriage amendment is NOT the answer to this problem! It is absolutely the wrong thing to do!

For one thing, the federal government has no authority to define marriage. It has already been defined---by God! To allow the federal government to begin defining marriage can only lead to more and increased problems.

Once again, federal courts are pushing the envelope in this country. It is the courts that are attempting to redefine the traditional definition of marriage. There has not been, and probably will not soon (if ever) be a State that by due process (the ballot box or vote of the legislature) has successfully redefined marriage as being between same-sex persons.

Beyond that, Congress has already passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prohibits same-sex marriage. And it became law when President Bill Clinton signed it. Now all Congress needs to do is tell the federal courts to keep their grubby hands off it, which they have they power to do under Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.

Passing a marriage amendment would actually make a bad problem worse. By passing a federal amendment, it would almost certainly guarantee that the federal courts would be able to interpret it any way they chose. Seeing the way federal courts are misinterpreting just about every constitutional amendment already written, why would anyone believe that a new one is going to fare any better?

I can almost guarantee this audience that if a marriage amendment was to pass, some federal court would rule that polygamy, or even incest, is "constitutional," and then another whole can of worms would be opened. A constitutional amendment invites additional judicial encroachment upon the institution of marriage and subjects it to any and all governmental abuse.

Instead of promoting a constitutional amendment, President Bush should uphold his oath of office under Article 4, Section 4, that says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government."

That means, the President has the authority to insist that any and all matters not specifically prescribed to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States and to the people (see the Tenth Amendment). If individual states want to attempt to legalize homosexual marriage, let them try it lawfully: through their elected representatives and governors.

I would dare say that not even the State of Massachusetts or the State of California could pass a same-sex marriage law. And even if they did, DOMA actually prohibits other states from recognizing any such state law.

Defending the family also involves getting the federal government out of areas in which it has no business, such as education. It is not the federal government's responsibility to educate our children. It is the job of parents to educate their children.

Our public education system is a mess! Mainly, this is due to the vast, overreaching intrusion into education by the federal government. And instead of reducing the federal government's role (and cost) in education, President Bush and the Republican Party passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which is the largest and most invasive education bill in the history of the republic!

In 1994, Republicans were swept into the majority of both houses of Congress on the promise of eliminating at least five federal departments, including the Department of Education. Ten years later, not only have they not eliminated the Department of Education, they have increased its authority and cost by record levels! As a result, the federal government is more involved, more intrusive, more costly, and more problematic to the area of education than it was when Democrats were in control. How can Christians, conservatives, and constitutionalists continue to support such a party?

Part Three: Restore The Constitution

Recently, I wrote a column entitled, "You Know Things Are In Bad Shape When Jay Leno Makes More Sense Than Either Kerry Or Bush." I was referring to something comedian Jay Leno said in his opening monologue on The Tonight Show. He said, "They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys. It's worked for over 200 years, and, [heck], we're not using it anymore." You know something? Leno is absolutely right!

Neither President Bush nor John Kerry has any intention of obeying the U.S. Constitution. Neither major party has any fidelity to the Constitution. Therefore, it really doesn't matter which of the two major parties are in power, the Constitution continues to be ignored or even expunged.

For example, both Republican and Democratic presidents have demonstrated a propensity to send our troops to war without a Declaration of War from Congress. The Constitution is very clear: only Congress is authorized to declare war. Only Congress is authorized to lead America into war.

Our president is not a monarch; he is not a dictator. His responsibilities are clearly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. He has no authority to wage war without a formal Declaration of War by Congress.

Therefore, because Congress refused to declare war against Iraq, this war is unconstitutional and illegal under our laws. In plain terms, the war against Iraq is G.W. Bush's war; it is not America's war! Unfortunately, it is American military personnel particularly and the American people generally who will pay the price for Mr. Bush's war. This is a monstrous tragedy.

As a result of the recklessness of both President Bush and members of Congress, the war in Iraq has quickly turned into a giant nightmare! This is a quagmire that we will not be able to extricate ourselves from anytime soon, if ever. If anything, this unconstitutional, unwarranted, and unwise invasion of Iraq will escalate into a conflict of global proportions. It could very easily become Bush's Waterloo and America's second Viet Nam.

Americans would be well advised to heed the words of John Quincy Adams who, in 1821, said, "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors of patriotism and usurp the standards of freedom." Amen!

Beyond that, through policies and laws such as The Patriot Act, President Bush is promoting legislation that destroys freedom here in the states even as he sends troops abroad under the rubric of freedom. His words say he wants to give the Iraqi people freedom, but his actions say he wants to expunge the freedoms of the American people. In fact, more freedoms have been lost under G.W. Bush in less than four years, than were lost under Bill Clinton in eight!

The Patriot Act is emphatically unconstitutional! It virtually eviscerates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. It grants egregiously unconstitutional powers to federal police agencies (which are themselves largely unconstitutional in nature) and sets the wheels in motion to turn the United States of America into a socialist-style police state.

Consider also President Bush's announced desire to grant millions of illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico, amnesty. Could anything be more unconstitutional than that?

Article 4, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, "The United States shall protect each State against invasion." But, ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly what is happening. The southern borders states are being invaded, and President Bush wants to grant legal status to the invaders! It's insane!

This was illustrated just recently when our U.S. soccer team played in Zapopan, Mexico. As "The Star-Spangled Banner" was played, thousands of Mexicans shouted, "Osama! Osama! Osama!" I wonder how many of those Mexicans shouting support for bin Laden will be living freely and legally in the United States in just a few months as a result of Bush's "Guest Worker" program? The truth is, Bush's amnesty proposal should be regarded as treasonous!

Another area that seriously violates the Constitution is "free trade." First of all, there is no such thing as free trade. Trade, by its very definition, requires the exchange of commerce. Therefore, in any trade exchange, there are purchasers and sellers. Someone pays the bill in each and every trade deal. The only thing free in these modern "free trade" agreements is the free ride that the internationalists receive from our federal government, which is being paid by American workers with lower wages and the loss of American jobs. NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and now President Bush's proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) are not only blatantly unconstitutional, they are downright harmful to the security and interests of the United States.

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution plainly gives Congress the responsibility to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." That Congress has willingly ceded this responsibility and that the President has wrongfully assumed this responsibility means that both Congress and the President have violated their oaths of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

With the collusion of President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, NAFTA was passed (during the middle of the night, by the way). Now, President G.W. Bush wants to extend NAFTA with his push for FTAA. The result of FTAA would mean that instead of American jobs and industries moving to Mexico, they could move to even cheaper and more backward countries such as Bolivia and Peru. And let's not overlook China.

America's trade deficit with China is staggering! According to a recent Washington Times report, "The trade deficit jumped 17 percent to a record $489 billion last year, propelled by an explosion in trade with China.

"America's $124 billion deficit with China is now twice its trade gap with Japan, three times its deficit with Mexico, and substantially above its $100 billion deficit with all of Western Europe."

"Free trade" has all but expunged America's manufacturing industries. Our textile plants have mostly vanished. The same is true for our electronics industry and even our steel industry. The vast majority of America's giant corporations are now importing goods from overseas. The cost of this insanity in terms of American jobs, wages, and strain on American families is incalculable.

Most American families are working two, three, or even more jobs just to try and make ends meet. Combining meager wages with an ever increasing tax burden means that most American families are barely able to keep their heads above water, while many others are languishing in obscene debt.

While average America fights to tread water, the CEOs, CFOs, and other high level executives of the multinational corporations are raking in monstrous profits. Multinational corporations accomplish this by hiring slave or cheap labor from these third world and socialist countries and then import their goods back to America practically duty-free. All the while, these same countries require the U.S. to pay huge duties for our exports.

So-called "free trade" is not only unconstitutional, it is perverse! It makes America more and more dependent upon foreign nations, which makes us more and more vulnerable to those who seek to harm us.

Ladies and gentlemen, please let me read the sage advice of George Washington as written in his Farewell Address on September 17, 1796. "As avenues to foreign influence, in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming, to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford, to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom the actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

Now, let me conclude with a few remarks regarding political parties in general. It seems that many people, including Christian people, have forgotten that parties are supposed to serve the best interests of the nation, not the other way around.

It seems that the only time people become exercised over the abuse or misuse of power by a Chief Executive of member of Congress is when the person is a member of the party opposite. When someone within our own party is guilty of unconstitutional, unlawful, or even immoral conduct, we look the other way. When the guilty party is a member of the other party, however, we become filled with righteous indignation and holy zealousness.

It really does appear that many Americans are so extremely partisan in their party allegiance that the definition of patriotism depends upon who is in office. When my party is in office, patriotism means defending them no matter what, but when the other party is in office, it means attacking them no matter what. What utter foolishness!

President Theodore Roosevelt spoke cogently to this topic when he said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

George Washington, too, warned us against an over-infatuation with political parties. In his Farewell Address he said, "Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments, occasionally, riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus, the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This, within certain limits, is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchial cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

It is time that the American people got back to the wisdom of George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt. It is time that the American people got back to truth, got back to right and wrong, got back to the Constitution. It is time we started looking out for what is best for the United States, not what is best for a particular political party. In short, it's time we started being Americans again!

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson summarized it best when he said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." That is exactly what Michael Peroutka and the Constitution Party are all about.

Thank you very much.

Chuck Baldwin

These commentaries are published Tuesdays and Fridays and may not be reprinted or republished without permission. Editors or publishers interested in running these editorials, or Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview may contact

To learn more about my radio talk show please visit my web site at When responding, please include your name, city and state.

Chuck Baldwin's Bio Untitled

When honest people who hold strong opinions come together, it is natural that they state their opinions, and that those opinions occasionally clash. The articles that you see on this website represent the opinion of the writers, and are not the official opinion of this party. To see the official party position on any question, the reader is referred to the Party Platform.

Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author,and our URL. All CP Texas reports, and all editorials are property of The Constitution Party of Texas 2002 (unless otherwise noted).

Previous Articles by Chuck Baldwin


          Produced by JSager Web Designs