Posted on 01/20/2008 2:31:40 AM PST by Def Conservative
Interestingly, Huckabee championed the true Federalist solution, returning the question to the States as befitting the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and he was very public on this for many years, and as recently as a year ago; the position espoused by Thompson.
Questions about this are obfuscated with a statement of his "being consistently pro-life," which may, admittedly be true, but does not explain his change from a one solution to another. He simply refuses to explain this, but I think we can guess his Life Amendment position, his new position, has been taken up as a bromide to folks with little historic perspective on Constitutional history, who default to Washington literally because so few of these folk will be satisfied with progress using a finer tool than a sledgehammer.
There are good reasons for a Marriage Amendment because the wide protections given this institution are likely to be made subject to the reciprocity clause, requiring North Carolina to respect the anti-Marriage laws adopted in Hawai'i.
A Human Life Amendment to the federal Constitution is unnecessary, and, if you'll pardon me, divisive. Such language in the several State constitutions takes work and knowledge of things as who one's state legislator is. Right to Life in every state is fighting on a more than fifty fronts. In each State, Right to Life is fighting over a mind-boggling array of life erosion questions, some of them very complicated, like fetal murder, End of Life issues, etc.
But, this requires leadership and thinking, if not by the sheep than by the Under-Shepherds.
I agree.....Rudy or Mitt....but, no Huck. He’s not a Republican nor is he a conservative.
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.