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

Skip to comments.

HUCK, THE CONSTITUTION AND 'GOD'S STANDARDS'
MSNBC ^ | January 15, 2008 | MSNBC

Posted on 01/15/2008 4:59:40 PM PST by america4vr

Huckabee's closing argument to voters here this evening featured a few new stories and two prolonged sections on illegal immigration and Christian values.

These two topics usually feature prominently in Huckabee's stump speech, but last night he got specific, promising to build a border fence within 18 months if elected and elaborating on his belief that the constitution needs to be amended.

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.

Tomorrow Huckabee will visit two polling places in the morning before taking off for South Carolina where he will watch Michigan's returns come in.

(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christian; christianworldview; christianwrldviewnot; huckabee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last
No matter how he phrases it, Huckabee surely knows that his desire to amend the Constitution to reflect practices, beliefs he calls God's Standards violates the separation of Church and State and that being unconstitutional has zero chance of ever getting out of the gate. So why does he even bother to make such foolish statements?
1 posted on 01/15/2008 4:59:41 PM PST by america4vr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Because he continues to undertake a maximal effort to dupe evengelicals into voting for him. He’s the Manchurian Candidate. I wonder if he like Slick, is, not only another man from Hope, but also, is taking ChiCOM money?


2 posted on 01/15/2008 5:02:21 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

“So why does he even bother to make such foolish statements?”

Same reason he says he’s in favor of the Fair Tax. He knows it will swing some emotional votes his way, then if he ever actually won he would never have to go through with it because it would never pass.

Trying to have it both ways, according to his Clintonesqe nature.


3 posted on 01/15/2008 5:03:33 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Donating to Fred Thompson is the antidote to media bias.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
This one statement, ONE STATEMENT, will be the downfall of Huckabee if he gets the nod.

And it will also be the downfall of Christianity in the United States, as well as all Christians.

As if Christians already didn't have stereotypes to fight against.

4 posted on 01/15/2008 5:04:01 PM PST by rintense (Thompson / Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

I think this guy is Hillary’s big plant designed to make Christians look really, really bad.


5 posted on 01/15/2008 5:07:19 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (if you can't stand the heat, get out of the melting pot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

The liberals love this kind of stuff. The left wing blogs can use his comments out of context to imply conservatives want a theocracy. Huck is a really a moron.


6 posted on 01/15/2008 5:07:43 PM PST by camerakid400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
And it will also be the downfall of Christianity in the United States, as well as all Christians.

get some chicken soup and curl up with a nice book.

7 posted on 01/15/2008 5:09:01 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (if you can't stand the heat, get out of the melting pot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

The man from Hope promises false hope.

To make such a promise as he does is ludicrous.
For people to buy into it is alarming.


8 posted on 01/15/2008 5:09:34 PM PST by donnab (ordinary men and women do extraordinary things....watch us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

“So why does he even bother to make such foolish statements?”

Because he’s a fool.


9 posted on 01/15/2008 5:10:41 PM PST by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Nope, I’m fighting, because I know Huckabee does not represent me as a Christian. And I certainly want nothing to do with his charlatan ways.


10 posted on 01/15/2008 5:10:56 PM PST by rintense (Thompson / Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Oh, brother.


11 posted on 01/15/2008 5:11:27 PM PST by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

“I think this guy is Hillary’s big plant designed to make Christians look really, really bad.”

It’s working.


12 posted on 01/15/2008 5:12:48 PM PST by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
No matter how he phrases it, Huckabee surely knows that his desire to amend the Constitution to reflect practices, beliefs he calls God's Standards violates the separation of Church and State and that being unconstitutional has zero chance of ever getting out of the gate. So why does he even bother to make such foolish statements?

Actually, amending the Constitution doesn't violate the separation of Church and State because that Constitutional provision is directed to Congress against cutting one church a special deal not given to others or against prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Let's not lose sight of what the Constitution actually says in favor of loony extrapolations.
13 posted on 01/15/2008 5:14:05 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
No matter how he phrases it, Huckabee surely knows that his desire to amend the Constitution to reflect practices, beliefs he calls God's Standards violates the separation of Church and State and that being unconstitutional has zero chance of ever getting out of the gate. So why does he even bother to make such foolish statements?

Nonsense.

Huckabee shouldn't be the nominee of our party but that doesn't give you license to spout crap. Huckabees motivations for amendming the Constitution are not unconstituional. It's called freedom of religion.

14 posted on 01/15/2008 5:14:21 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

It does sound as if Huckabee wants to establish a theocracy. That is sufficient reason to oppose his candidacy. We do not want to establish a theocracy, no matter which religion is in charge. The inevitable result of establishing a theocracy is the establishment of an unholy inquisition. I call it unholy, because it not really concerned with serving God, it is simply a way to extort money out of people. An inquisition is also a delight for sick, sadistic bastards, because it gives them a legally sanctioned way to indulge in torture.


15 posted on 01/15/2008 5:14:53 PM PST by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

I do, though, believe that Huck is some kind of dumb thing that rhymes with his abbreviation for suggesting it in his typical pandering way. That in itself is an abuse of religion for his own personal and political gain.


16 posted on 01/15/2008 5:16:09 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
No matter how he phrases it, Huckabee surely knows that his desire to amend the Constitution to reflect practices, beliefs he calls God's Standards violates the separation of Church and State and that being unconstitutional has zero chance of ever getting out of the gate.

"Endowed by the Creator" probably upsets you too. One, an amendment to the constitution can't be unconstitutional by definition. Two, a religious motivation even for a bill in congress isn't unconstitutional unless it contains language establishing a state religion.

17 posted on 01/15/2008 5:18:17 PM PST by Soliton (McCain/Thompson 2008. Feingold for Secretary of the Treasury!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution

Just the ones who... you know, actually respect the Constitution.

Time to say good-bye to this clown.

18 posted on 01/15/2008 5:18:39 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Nothing wrong with THE CONSTITUTION, Huck, leave it alone!
Compared to the minds that drafted THE CONSTITUTION, Huck, you are a cretin, or a craven politician, oops, did I just say something redundant?


19 posted on 01/15/2008 5:19:47 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Michael Dale Huckabee uses religion
to cover up his liberal, nanny state,
open border record.

Total fraud!


20 posted on 01/15/2008 5:22:49 PM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Rudy,Romney,McCain, Huckabee will send a self-abused stomped elephant to the DRNC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE
It’s working.

If so, it's working with those ignorant of Christianity, politics, and the dark side of human nature.

In other words, hillary's target audience.

I guess that's a circular argument...

21 posted on 01/15/2008 5:23:16 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (if you can't stand the heat, get out of the melting pot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
It seems Huck realizes he's in trouble and so took a calculated gamble to risk short term gain in Michigan against the long term view whereby he would be totally impugned.

I suppose he felt to say what the voters wanted to hear to live another day and sort it out later, like saying he was misunderstood, misquoted.

A truly moronic, mindless strategy/

22 posted on 01/15/2008 5:23:30 PM PST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense

that’s how a warrior princess should talk.


23 posted on 01/15/2008 5:24:25 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (if you can't stand the heat, get out of the melting pot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Please don't impugn my comments without the benefit of logic or common sense.

What is it about the separation of Church and State is it you want to point out that I don't understand?

24 posted on 01/15/2008 5:28:03 PM PST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD

I am waiting for him to say “I feel your pain”!


25 posted on 01/15/2008 5:30:08 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

If so, it’s working with those ignorant of Christianity, politics, and the dark side of human nature.
In other words, hillary’s target audience.

The are LOTS of Christians that DO NOT want a theocracy.

What they want is a secular government that does not restrict their right to practice the religion of their choice.

But try explaining that to a liberal/atheist. It doesn’t fit their stereotypical view of Christians.


26 posted on 01/15/2008 5:32:20 PM PST by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
Please don't impugn my comments without the benefit of logic or common sense.

I'll impugn any assinine comment that pleases me. Comprende?

What is it about the separation of Church and State is it you want to point out that I don't understand?

First of all there is no such phrase in the United States Constitution. Second of all, Mike Huckabee is a private citizen. Third of all, a President Huckabee's motivation for wanting to amend the constitution is not only not unconstitutional, it is guranteed by that same constitution that you, evidently, are unfamiliar with.

27 posted on 01/15/2008 5:32:52 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Every school kid knows that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion but keeps the Church and State distinctly separate.

So why don't you dispense with the insults and emotionally cacophonous hysteria and explain why the inclusion of "God's Standards" as defined by Gov Huckabee is not unconstitutional if it espouses such partisan, religious points of view?

28 posted on 01/15/2008 5:36:09 PM PST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Video!

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/15/huckabee-lets-amend-the-constitution-to-bring-it-in-line-with-gods-standards/


29 posted on 01/15/2008 5:39:16 PM PST by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
Every school kid knows that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion but keeps the Church and State distinctly separate.

Well you being a school kid and all perhaps you could show me where in the Constitution a citizens motivations for amending the Constitution are unconstitional?

So why don't you dispense with the insults and emotionally cacophonous hysteria and explain why the inclusion of "God's Standards" as defined by Gov Huckabee is not unconstitutional if it espouses such partisan, religious points of view?

I already did, you just don't have the wherewithal to understand that. Not my problem. But your vocabulary is impressive!

I take it that your view of America is that only secular motivations are sufficient for government actors to move legislation or the amendment process. Is that your position? The signers of the DOI would be astounded at that view but, what the heck, it's a free country.

30 posted on 01/15/2008 5:45:47 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
No matter how he phrases it, Huckabee surely knows that his desire to amend the Constitution to reflect practices, beliefs he calls God's Standards violates the separation of Church and State and that being unconstitutional has zero chance of ever getting out of the gate. So why does he even bother to make such foolish statements?

While I am probably the loudest and most strident of Anti-Huck posters here, this post is just plain ignorant.

While I don't believe that the Huckster is mature enough or honest enough to be any type of leader, much less the leader of the free world, he is correct about both the Human Life Amendment and the Marriage Amendment.

There is nothing about either of these two efforts that in anyway violates whatever the constitution says about the seperation of Church and State.

Also, there is no such thing as Seperation of Church in State in the Constitution. It only exists in the letters of Jefferson.
31 posted on 01/15/2008 5:51:11 PM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Um, just pointing out the OBVIOUS here but if the Constitution is amended, the new amendment by definition IS CONSTITUTIONAL.


32 posted on 01/15/2008 5:52:40 PM PST by weegee (Those who surrender personal liberty to lower global temperatures will receive neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Well you being a school kid and all perhaps you could show me where in the Constitution a citizens' motivations for amending the Constitution are unconstitional?

There are indeed no Constitutional constraints on the citizens motivations for wanting to amend the Constitution. It is, however politically oxymoronic to claim doing it is "conservative".

33 posted on 01/15/2008 5:53:16 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

He’s advocating the passing of constitutional amendments. When you pass a constitutional amendment, it changes the constitution. The courts keep overturning restrictions/bans on abortion, which many people’s religious belief(s) instruct is wrong. We can either wait for a Supreme Court that will uphold restrictions/bans on abortion, or amend the constitution and ban the procedure now. All arguments supporting the procedure are now null and void in the face of the law, as the procedure is now unconstitutional.

The amendment is state support for a religion, you say? Well, let’s read what the constitution says about it. Nope, nothing about religion in the amendment, all it says is that the medical procedure, abortion, is banned.


34 posted on 01/15/2008 5:55:21 PM PST by DrGunsforHands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It is, however politically oxymoronic to claim doing it is "conservative".

There is nothing oxymoronic about cliaming to be a conservative and wanting the Constitution amended to protect unborn human beings. Not a damn thing.

If you want to say that Huckabee has some moronic ideas or that he uses his religion too politcally that is one thing but what you stated is another. And you are wrong. The Constitution has provisions for the amendment process and the pro life leg of the party is part of the conservative coalition. That would include me though it isn't sufficient to describe my conservatism since I am a three legged conservative. :-}

35 posted on 01/15/2008 6:01:26 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

>>
“...why does he even bother to make such foolish statements?”
>>

Because there are voters out there who will vote for him because he says such things.


36 posted on 01/15/2008 6:01:43 PM PST by SatinDoll (Fredhead and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Despite trying to engage you in an intellectually-honest exchange,it seems you have neither the desire nor capacity to convey anything but for what seems impressive to no one but yourself.

I should know better not to respond to anything you post in the future.

37 posted on 01/15/2008 6:03:39 PM PST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Orky Dorky.


38 posted on 01/15/2008 6:04:50 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
There is nothing oxymoronic about cliaming to be a conservative and wanting the Constitution amended

Sure seems like it to me. If changing it is "conservative", what's there to conserve?

39 posted on 01/15/2008 6:05:48 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Yes, your point is correct and well-taken. As laws they would be unconstitutional, as amendments they obviously would not.
Thank you.


40 posted on 01/15/2008 6:07:59 PM PST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The Constitution describes the amendment process. The founders were smart guys. There is nothing inherently unconservative about amending the constitution. See the Bill of Rights, amendments all.


41 posted on 01/15/2008 6:08:31 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: america4vr
"...I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said,..."

Gee, think of all the wonderful countries who have adopted this very policy.

Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran,....

42 posted on 01/15/2008 6:09:31 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Bumping your post on adding Amendments. However, although I would agree with the ideas of these Amendments - I’m not sure I want us changing the Constitution on everything that comes up. Plus - I think it would be practically impossible to do - at least with the abortion issue.

Heres a quote from Huck back in 2001:

“I’m pro life, but I know not everyone agrees with me on that particular topic, and I respect that. I’ll probably never change my conviction on that, and some of you won’t change yours. But in this day in which we talk about choice and the importance of it, surely we can agree that if under the Supreme Court choice is mandated, that choice should be as educated a choice as is humanly possible”.

State of the State Address, Arkansas Legislature, Jan 9,2001

For someone that now wants to change the Constitution - that statement just doesn’t seem to have the zeal that it should have.


43 posted on 01/15/2008 6:11:05 PM PST by geopyg (Don't wish for peace, pray for Victory. ------ www.gohunter08.com ------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

mark


44 posted on 01/15/2008 6:13:35 PM PST by The Mayor ( A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.—Proverbs 16:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The Constitution describes the amendment process. The founders were smart guys. There is nothing inherently unconservative about amending the constitution. See the Bill of Rights, amendments all.

The BOR was considered redundant and unnecessary by many of the Founders, who considered everything it expressed explicitly to already be implicit in the Articles of the Constitution. Beyond that, it's purpose was to impose limits on the power of the federal government, not expand it.

45 posted on 01/15/2008 6:15:41 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: camerakid400
The left wing blogs can use his comments out of context to imply conservatives want a theocracy.

Heck (Huck?), they can even use his comments in context to imply conservatives want a theocracy.

46 posted on 01/15/2008 6:21:07 PM PST by BfloGuy (It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Yes, you are correct.

I made my comments in haste and thanks to those who've pointed it out to me realize that my words were very poorly chosen, not well-expressed at all.

Indeed, any proposal that passes the amendment process would be deemed constitutional. I apologize for my rather ignorant and, yes, dumb, DUMB, d-u-m-b, comments.

Thank you all.

47 posted on 01/15/2008 6:23:16 PM PST by america4vr (The ebb and flow of empires have come and gone but America shall forever reign supreme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The BOR was considered redundant and unnecessary by many of the Founders,

The people ratified the BOR's. What "many of the founders" though is moot because the people spoke.

who considered everything it expressed explicitly to already be implicit in the Articles of the Constitution.

Implicit is for liberal adventurist jurists. Explicit is for conservative jurists. The people knew it then and I know it now. The powers that be have one overriding concern and that is consolidating their power and growing it. My hat's off to the people of the United States who understood that.

Beyond that, it's purpose was to impose limits on the power of the federal government, not expand it.

That's one view, it's not mine. I happen to believe when the people ratify an amendment that conserves their right to keep and bear arms, they meant just exactly that.

48 posted on 01/15/2008 6:24:10 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
What "many of the founders" though is moot

Then just what is it you think you're "conserving"?

49 posted on 01/15/2008 6:25:52 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: america4vr

Your post #47 speaks highly of your character. My apologies for being cacaphonous. :-}


50 posted on 01/15/2008 6:25:53 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next 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