Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Huckabee on "Meet the Press"
CBS News ^ | 12/30/20007 | Nancy Cords

Posted on 12/30/2007 12:02:17 PM PST by wastedpotential

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 last
To: muawiyah

“They” don’t just round up folk, thank God. Treason has a legal definition under Article III of the Constitution. Conviction requires due process, including evidence obtained under legal warrant and the testimony of two witnesses or a confession in open court.

And a nice prison is still a prison.


141 posted on 12/30/2007 7:57:27 PM PST by LadyNavyVet (An independent Freeper, not paid by any political campaign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: unspun

“Just as with the Bible, the elements of our Constitution must be read and interpreted in their context.”

Oh, so not a strict constructionist of the Bible. Look to it’s historical context to figure out what it means?


142 posted on 12/30/2007 7:59:28 PM PST by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
There was no union formed by the Declaration. The signers declared each colony to be “free and independent states”.

...while calling the new nation "a people" at the beginning of the Declaration and by its end, "united" as the "united Sates of America."

143 posted on 12/30/2007 8:03:34 PM PST by unspun (God save us from egos -- especially our own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
Oh, so not a strict constructionist of the Bible. Look to it’s historical context to figure out what it means?

No difference. It is as it was written. The history is God's history, in which we are players with and against Him.

144 posted on 12/30/2007 8:16:04 PM PST by unspun (God save us from egos -- especially our own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: unspun

And it is still not the document upon which our government was formed.


145 posted on 12/30/2007 8:16:06 PM PST by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Impeachment is the proper remedy. Not arrest.


146 posted on 12/30/2007 8:18:03 PM PST by keepitreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
And it is still not the document upon which our government was formed.

It is not the document which fumulates our government. However it is the document which provides for it and upon which our Constitution squarely rests.

IOW, We the People were "a people" before we penned those words -- thus we were able to pen them.

Our union is based upon the principles of the Declaration. Ontologically so; not just figuratively.

147 posted on 12/30/2007 8:27:22 PM PST by unspun (God save us from egos -- especially our own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
Protecting the country is the "first job" of the whole bunch not just the president.

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I think it is for the whole bunch too, but not necessarily the number one job for the president. For a candidate to say that it is makes me wary. I would like to know more precisely what he means, but my initial reaction is repugnance as I see the candidate's view of the job as daddy/ protector. Daddy. Nanny. Same thing.

148 posted on 12/30/2007 9:36:26 PM PST by LordBridey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Hattie
The POTUS is Commander in Chief of the Military. It is most assuredly his job to protect this country. That is the oath he takes.

Thanks for the reply. The oath he takes is to defend the constitution. I think that is his number one job. All the constitution says on the subject is: " The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ".

I'm not certain that can be translated into the creation of a protection czar. Since the constitution actually calls for the congress to call up and fund armies and delegates authority to declare war to the legislative branch, I think a case can be made that it is not the president's number one job to protect the country when certain crucial aspects of that job are relegated elsewhere by the constitution.

149 posted on 12/30/2007 9:55:35 PM PST by LordBridey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

I have my own issues with the Huckster, but there is enough about his record and votes to keep any conservative full of ammunition without having to whip up anything about his weight loss, for goodness sake!

Having recently dropped 40 lbs through sheer hard work, diet, and exercise, I am proof that it can be done without surgery. Honestly, other than graphs about “typical” weight loss, does anyone have any proof? If not, why not go after Huck on the issues?


150 posted on 12/31/2007 12:12:59 AM PST by VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: TChad

Exactly right. If a president could stop abortions, why over a million abortions took place in 8 years of Reagan? President Reagan was firmly pro-life.


151 posted on 12/31/2007 1:05:22 AM PST by ajay_kumar (United we win, divided democrats win. How difficult is that to understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
Impeachment for judges?

THat's how you remove a member of the Executive Branch. With the Judiciary you just fire them ~ that's what Thomas Jefferson did. Cuts out the middleman and reduces the costs substantially.

152 posted on 12/31/2007 9:35:29 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: LadyNavyVet

There are prisons and then there are prisons. I was thinking we ought to bring in some specialists from Turkey.


153 posted on 12/31/2007 9:36:19 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: keepitreal
The "new government" was formed by following procedures available in the Articles of Confederation. And yes, in Lincoln's time it was more commonly the case that a reference to "the Constitution" was a reference to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

Lincoln did that himself. Take 1863, subtract "4 score and 7 years" (87 years). That takes you back to 1776, and that is many years before 1790.

He clearly referenced the Declaration ~

He also said "Our forefathers set forth on this continent a new nation" ~ and you can't do that with out some founding principles. Lincoln then covered them, in brief.

We could go on and on from there, and look at his Second Inaugural Address ~ it's pretty good too. The Constitution of 1790 was more of a piece of paper to Lincoln than any Souvrn' sympathizer could ever imagine. His eye was fixed firmly on the founding principles ~ not the mistakes made later!

154 posted on 12/31/2007 9:47:33 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson