If he said that in my presence, this is what he'd look like before he could even get the smile off his face:
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.
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.
~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
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.
ML/NJ
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.
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/11/mike_huckabee_for_states_right.aspx
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, I’ve 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..
Circular reasoning.
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.