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 ...
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?
“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.
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.
I think this guy is Hillary’s big plant designed to make Christians look really, really bad.
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.
get some chicken soup and curl up with a nice book.
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.
“So why does he even bother to make such foolish statements?”
Because he’s a fool.
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.
Oh, brother.
“I think this guy is Hillary’s big plant designed to make Christians look really, really bad.”
It’s working.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Just the ones who... you know, actually respect the Constitution.
Time to say good-bye to this clown.
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?
Michael Dale Huckabee uses religion
to cover up his liberal, nanny state,
open border record.
Total fraud!
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...
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/
that’s how a warrior princess should talk.
What is it about the separation of Church and State is it you want to point out that I don't understand?
I am waiting for him to say “I feel your pain”!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Um, just pointing out the OBVIOUS here but if the Constitution is amended, the new amendment by definition IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
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".
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.
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. :-}
>>
“...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.
I should know better not to respond to anything you post in the future.
Orky Dorky.
Sure seems like it to me. If changing it is "conservative", what's there to conserve?
Yes, your point is correct and well-taken. As laws they would be unconstitutional, as amendments they obviously would not.
Thank you.
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.
Gee, think of all the wonderful countries who have adopted this very policy.
Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran,....
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.
mark
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.
Heck (Huck?), they can even use his comments in context to imply conservatives want a theocracy.
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.
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.
Then just what is it you think you're "conserving"?
Your post #47 speaks highly of your character. My apologies for being cacaphonous. :-}
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.