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