http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1951136%2C300
Similarly, I have read Huckabee’s very strongly principled position on nominating only originalist, (no penumbra here) justices.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=28
As to helping to convice Americans what way is up, culturally, I am referring to what he is saying and what he is committing to. It seems you haven’t been hearing what he is saying.
RebekahT, thanks again for your notes — what you have not related (yet, anyway) is that Huckabee has a propensity for reneging on very concretely and principally stated commitments to the voters.
Judges
One of the greatest ongoing threats to our constitutional republic is the ever-increasing politicization of the federal judiciary. Instead of interpreting the law according to its plain or original meaning, many judges are using the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress as a mere pretense for imposing their policy preferences on the American people. This is unacceptable. The role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench; and as president, I will only appoint men and women who share this view.
I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.” The meaning of the Constitution cannot be changed by judicial fiat. The powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution come from “We the People,” and judges have no right to prohibit the people from passing democratically-enacted laws unless we have explicitly authorized them to do so. Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address. As such, any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on “evolving standards of decency,” penumbras, or any other judicial fiction, is antithetical to the rule of law, and must be forcefully challenged.
As president, I will appoint justices and judges who not only share my judicial philosophy ( e.g., Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito), but who also have established themselves within the conservative legal community as faithful adherents of originalism and textualism. The stakes are simply too high to do otherwise.
Finally, I wholeheartedly believe “that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be”; and I will do everything in my power as president to promote these cherished principles.
He ran (for governor) as a conservative but governed as a liberal. If you want to believe everything he puts on his website about where he stands on the issues, I won’t be able to change your mind.
I, as a conservative first, cannot support someone with a record as liberal as his, regardless what he says during the GOP primary.
Immigration link, corrected below (inadvertently you provided a link to post to me):
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4
I have little ability to actually "listen" to what he's saying. I can only read, as I am able, what he states, or what others say about him. I have no television to watch the news and have not for about 1 1/2 years.
I am not from Arkansas, so I don't have any personal history or dealings or concerns with the affairs of Arkansas. I get my information from others who do, or from media sources online (obviously not the MSM, unless it's posted in FR, for reasons previously stated).
So, I sort through what I'm reading about his past v. what he's saying today. His past actions and present claims about future positions don't always seem to comport...so, it comes down more to listening to those who have better (or more accurate/up to date/personal) information than I concerning Huckabee.