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 ...
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. :-}
How can the use of the amendment process described in the constitution be described as not conserving the constitution?
Was it not conservative to amend the Constitution so that black folks were no longer a fraction of white folks? I'm not getting where you are coming from.
I like him.He has to change his mind about a few things.I like everybody but Rudy and Paul.
I think the biggest problem people have for understanding Huck is that they don't appreciate the difference in running for Governor in an 87% democrat state vs a 50/50 National election. Reagan had liberal positions as a California Governor too. Huck has a very conservative platform. His opponents say he's lying and point to his more liberal record. He would never have had the opportunity to move Arkansas in a Republican direction if he had stuck to purely conservative positions. He has commited to doing so as POTUS.
If Huckabee fizzles, his followers will be looking for another prolife evangelical to fill the void. Hunter fits that bill, no one else in the race is evangelical.
The GOP doesn’t get it. They need to let this faction find a home. The amount of invective aimed at evangelicals is surprising, but then everyone wants their votes.
Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
Prolife evangelicals will be very comfortable in Hunter’s camp, since he’s a prolife evangelical staunch conservative.
.
.
.
.
On Poll Results and the End of Conservatism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951282/posts
If changing [the Constitution] is "conservative", what's there to conserve?
Conservative is when you restrict yourself to amending the Constitution by constitutional means . . . rather than by simply declaring that the Constitution means whatever you find convenient.
At the time, no it wasn't. Politically, "conservative" generally means opposed to or approaching change with some degree of trepidation. As it stands, questions of marriage and abortion are (or if the 10th Amendment were held to, would be) the pervue of the States. This is a tacit assertion that the States should not be trusted with those decisions.
Would it be "conservative" to use the amendment process to rescind the Bill of Rights?
Nonsense.
This is the founding principle of our Republic and the aim should be to preserve, conserve if you prefer, just that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This from the preacher that can’t confirm that Christians are the only ones saved.
I’ll grant there’s a reasonable arguement to be made there. I don’t find one in this case with the proposition that these decisions cannot be left to the States.
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.