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
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.