Skip to comments.Huckabee on Altering Constitution for Religion
Posted on 01/18/2008 6:50:19 AM PST by SE Mom
At approximately 4 minutes into this interview, Governor Mike Huckabee states the Constitution is a "...living, breathing document..."
This is a decidedly liberal view of the constitution.
You have got to listen to this...”living breathing document..”
Mike Huckabee wants to rewrite the Constitution according to Mike.
Apparently he knows a lot more than the framers.
I think you're misfiring by jumping on that statement.
Now I have to track down exactly what changes he wants to make.
Is this different than amending the Constitution?
Not surprising. Huckabee is a socialist hiding behind the name Christian. He is the epitome of the religious left; the new way to push socialism.
I don’t think Huckabee understands the implications of the things that come out of his mouth.
Please go back and LISTEN...he said the constitution is a LIVING, BREATHING, document.
For years, the LIBERALS have said and believed the constitution is a living, breathing document..It’s a liberal talking point.
Now- that is a point of view. It is not a conservative point of view.
Now I don't like the way he stated that the Constitution gave us the right to free speech or to bear arms. Those are inherent rights of people and the Constitution forbids the government from infringing on them. Rights are not derived from government.
But is it the same as amending?
Did you even bother to listen to what he had to say? If you did, then with what part of it do you disagree?
the Hound must GO!
He is talking about a pro-life amendment (part of the Republican party platform) and a marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. With which of those do you disagree?
Did you. Only a liberal feels the constitution is “living/breathing. A conservative feels that the constitution should only be altered in the most rare of circumstances.
I knew there was a problem with Yuckabee. Now it appears he has a BIG PROBLEM!
Conservative???????? What a CROCK!
He’s scaring me more and more. He must be stopped!
As Huckabee points out in the interview, the amendments to the constitution give us the right to free speech, the right to freedom of worship, the right to bear arms. The two amendments he refers to are the pro-life amendment that is part of the Republican party platform and the marriage amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Which of those are not conservative issues?
Ok- to explain why some folks will find his statement disquieting, this is another prominent person who likes the living, breathing document:
A prominent endorsement of the Living Constitution was heard in the 2000 presidential campaign by the Democratic candidate, Al Gore:
I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.
I disagree with neither. But he is promising what he cannot deliver.
He does this with every promise he makes.
It's time for it to exhale then.
You can go back over my posts regarding Huckabee and how much I hate him. I often call him Huckastupid.
But on this issue, I don’t see what he said that’s so wrong. Not that I prefer his approach over Fred’s — I don’t.
But all he’s saying is that he would support a couple of constitutional amendments.
What’s so earth-shattering about that?
See # 21
I do not agree with Huckabee’s view of the constitution- in fact - I strongly DISAGREE.
He was talking about the Human Life amendment.
But I think he does the cause a disservice when he couches what is really a simple fight for the dignity of all persons (the Human Life Amendment) in religious terms of re-writing the constitution to be more in tune with the bible.
I don’t oppose abortion because of a religious belief, I oppose abortion because it kills a human being. But now some people who might agree with me will oppose the amendment as trying to write religion into our constitution.
Mike Huckabee: It would please me because I think Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern than there is a human life issue and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision.
So, Ive never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.
I don't know if Huckabee said that, so I won't address this to him, but to you. The amendments did NOT give us those rights. In fact, some opposed those amendments because people would later claim that the rights were given by the amendments.
Those amendments define rights that the people already HAVE. They weren't amendments that were added later because of some difficulty either, they were required to get support for the constitution. They weren't written into the constitution because they didn't match what the constitution itself was about, which was defining the limited nature of government as to how that government COULD act, but instead were a list of things the government could NOT do.
These are two entirely different issues. Al Gore is talking about judicial activism, that is, interpreting the constitution from the bench. Such a position would give individual judges the right to decide what the constitution says, or should have said.
Huckabee is talking about something entirely different. He is talking about the fact that the constitution was written with the assumption that it was open to amendment. Provisions for amendment are written into the constitution itself. We enjoy many of our most cherished constitutional freedoms because of amendments to the constitution — freedom of worship, the right to bear arms. Huckabee is stating that there is nothing wrong with conservative efforts to amend the constitution to protect life and marriage. He is pointing out to another liberal CNN airhead that the constitution was designed to be amended as the need arose. The agreement of 3/4ths of the states on an issue of constitutional importants is a far cry from the decision of a single judge on what the constitution should have said.
He has absolutely NO chance of getting a 2/3 majority to make said changes. He’s either oblivious to reality, a liar or believes judges should kake that happen all of which are unacceptable in a President.
He’s not promising anything. He is stating a position.
What do you disagree with?
If he said that in my presence, this is what he'd look like before he could even get the smile off his face:
Whether he has a chance is not the issue brought up here. The issue is whether the constitution is open to amendment and on that issue Huckabee is dead right.
Those positions are part of the GOP platform. I expect all candidates to respect life and marriage.
I don’t care for Rooty, Huck or McCain. They do not embody what I expect from a conservative.
I honestly doubt that Mike Huckabee has the slightest idea about the constitution, I mean after all, he is educated only in Southern Baptist theology, and well he didn’t even graduate from Theology school.
Not that his ignorance of the constitution serves him badly, because when talking to the general public, they are not educated on the constitution either.
There will come a point in this campaign when Huckabee will be asked a question of real signficance, that he can not dodge, evade, or pass blame on. Just like When Al Sharpton was asked a question on Economics in a Democrat Debate in the last presidential election, and it showed that all the flowery words, scriptures, and BS will not work.
We have seen Huckabee falter at some extent already on some questions in debate, but Hucky is not going to be so Lucky soon.
Whom you support is entirely your choice. I just don’t like to see a man slammed for speaking sense.
Okay, go ahead and defend him.
Ok- I am not going into the merits of amending the constitution- my strong and vehement disagreement with him is the “living, breathing” nature.. I listened carefully to the tape- it’s his NON originalist view of the consitution that I distrust..
You must not get out much
Is there a left wing talking point this guy won’t use. I doubt it will make a difference to the followers of the “Cult of the ‘Bee”
I haven't listened to the interview but, if that's what he said, he has no clue what the Constitution is about. The Bill of Rights guarantees pre-existing rights. It doesn't grant them.
Sigh- I know. Maybe I’m one of only a few who will find that statement unsettling.
Nope, Schmuckabee is wrong.
God gave me those rights. The amendments in the Constitution prohibit the government from passing laws to curtail them.
Electing this man would be a Very Bad Thing.
I am coming to the conclusion that the man is just plain dumb. Definitely not ready for prime time.
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.